ARMY TM 5-814-7

HAZARDOUS WASTE LAND DISPOSAL/LAND

TREATMENT FACILITIES

H E A D Q U A R T E R S D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E A R M Y

NOVEMBER 1984
 TM 5-814-7

REPRODUCTION AUTHORIZATION/RESTRICTIONS

This manual has been prepared by or for the Government and is public property and not subject to copyright.

Reprints or reproductions of this manual should include a credit substantially as follows: "Department of the Army
Technical Manual TM 5-814-7, Hazardous Waste Land Disposal/Land Treatment Facilities, date."
 TM 5-814-7

TECHNICAL MANUAL

No. 5-814-7
} HEADQUARTERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WASHINGTON, DC 29 November 1984

HAZARDOUS WASTE LAND DISPOSAL/

LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES
Paragraph Page
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 1-1 1-1
Scope ............................................................................................................................... 1-2 1-1
2. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal regulations ................................................................................................................. 2-1 2-1
State and local regulatory requirements ................................................................................. 2-2 2-1
Army regulations ..................................................................................................................... 2-3 2-2
3. PRE-DESIGN EVALUSTION OF SITE CONDITIONS
Environmental and sociopolitical conditions ........................................................................... 3-1 3-1
Review of relevant site data .................................................................................................... 3-2 3-1
Hydrogeologic conditions ........................................................................................................ 3-3 3-2
Climate elements .................................................................................................................... 3-4 3-4
Impact of site conditions on selection of disposal method ...................................................... 3-5 3-4
Design requirements imposed by hydrogeologic co nditions................................................... 3-6 3-5
4. DISPOSAL AND HANDLING CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY WASTE COMPOSITION
Impact of waste stream on selection of disposal type ............................................................ 4-1 4-1
Design and handling constraints imposed by waste composition ........................................... 4-2 4-1
Waste analysis plan ................................................................................................................ 4-3 4-1
5. LAND DISPOSAL/LAND TREATMENT OPTIONS
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5-1 5-1
Landfills................................................................................................................................... 5-2 5-3
Surface impoundments ........................................................................................................... 5-3 5-4
Land treatment........................................................................................................................ 5-4 5-7
Deep well injection .................................................................................................................. 5-5 5-12
Waste piles ............................................................................................................................. 5-6 5-13
6. HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY DESIGN ELEMENTS
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 6-1 6-1
Flood control systems ............................................................................................................. 6-2 6-1
Liner systems.......................................................................................................................... 6-3 6-1
Leak detection and leachate collection and removal systems ................................................ 6-4 6-11
Surface water run-on and run-off control systems .................................................................. 6-5 6-14
Gas control systems ............................................................................................................... 6-6 6-21
Final cover .............................................................................................................................. 6-7 6-22
Special design elements ......................................................................................................... 6-8 6-25
7. OPERATIONS AND CONTINGENCY PLANS/TRAINING
Operations .............................................................................................................................. 7-1 7-1
Permit application assistance ................................................................................................. 7-2 7-2
Contingency plans .................................................................................................................. 7-3 7-2
Personnel requirements, training, and safety ......................................................................... 7-4 7-2
8. GROUND-WATER MONITORING
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 8-1 8-1
Monitoring requirements ......................................................................................................... 8-2 8-1
Monitoring program ................................................................................................................. 8-3 8-1
9. CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PLANS
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 9-1 9-1
Closure procedures ................................................................................................................ 9-2 9-1
Components of closure plan ................................................................................................... 9-3 9-1
Post-closure plans .................................................................................................................. 9-4 9-2
10. COST ANALYSIS
Cost elements ......................................................................................................................... 10-1 10-1
Unit costs ............................................................................................................................... 10-2 10-1
Appendix A REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... A-1
B FEDERAL AND STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS........................................... B-1
C EXAMPLE DESIGN PROBLEM.............................................................................................. C-1
BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................................................................................................................................................BIBLIO-1
i
 TM 5-814-7

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 5-1 Illustrative hazardous waste master plan 5-2
5-2 Landfill operations plan 5-5
5-3 Land treatment area details 5-9
5-4 Land treatment operations plan 5-11
5-5 Deep injection well 5-14
6-1 Flood control structures 6-2
6-2 Base liner details for landfills and surface impoundments 6-5
6-3 Base liner details for waste piles 6-6
6-4 Typical clay liner compatibility evaluation 6-10
6-5 Typical leak detection systems and leachate collection drains 6-13
6-6 Typical run on control ditches 6-16
6-7 Typical run-on control ditch for waste units 6-17
6-8 Typical run-off control ditch for final cover areas 6-18
6-9 Run-on sedimentation control run-off retention basins 6-20
6-10 Final cover details 6-23
8-1 Monitoring well details 8-3
8-2 Monitoring well installations 8-4

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 Composition and quantity data resources 3-2
3-2 Design/operational requirements imposed by hydrogeologic conditions 3-6
5-1 Design features required by RCRA for DA land disposal and treatment facilities 5-1
6-1 Requirements for liner systems 6-3
6-2 Summary of liner types 6-7
6-3 Seaming provisions for synthetic liners 6-11
6-4 Requirements for leachate collection and removal systems 6-12
6-5 Requirements for surface water run on and run-off control systems 6-15
6-6 Requirements for final cover at closure 6-22
6-7 Requirements for special design elements 6-26
10-1 Summary of unit costs for lined facility 10-1

ii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1-1. Purpose
The purpose of TM 5-814-7 is to establish Army design
criteria that comply with the national goal of ground-water
protection. On the Federal level, subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of
1976 (42 United States Code [USC] 6901 et. seq.)
promulgated standards for the management of
hazardous wastes. Of particular interest to the design
engineer in subtitle C of (RCRA) are design standards
for land disposal/land treatment facilities presented in 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 264. This section of
the law presents two sets of performance standards
applicable to this technical manual-one for land
disposal/land treatment facilities and the other for
ground-water monitoring. The performance standards
are directed toward (1) minimization of leachate
generation in the waste management facilities and
removal of leachate produced before it can enter the
subsurface environment (subparts K through N), and (2)
backup ground-water monitoring and response programs
to remove any detected leachate from the ground water
(subpart F).
1-1
TM 5-814-7
1-2. Scope
The regulatory framework for these design standards is
described in chapter 2 of the manual; as noted
throughout this manual, where Army criteria are more
stringent than other regulatory standards, the Army
criteria are preeminent. Chapter 3 addresses pre-design
evaluation of site conditions, the important first step the
design engineer must take prior to developing design
criteria for a facility. Another essential pre-design
consideration, disposal and handling constraints
imposed by waste composition, is addressed in chapter
4. The heart of the design manual lies in chapters 5 and
6. Chapter 5 describes landfills, impoundments, land
treatment, deep well injections and waste piles with
respect to waste suitability, disposal constraints,
procedures and equipment; chapter 6 presents the
specific engineering design elements for the five disposal
options. Summarized in chapters 7 through 9 are plans
and monitoring requirements for hazardous waste land
disposal/land treatment facilities generally dictated by 40
CFR 264. Cost elements for lined hazardous waste
facilities are described in chapter 10.

CHAPTER 2
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
2-1. Federal regulations
a. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(42 USC 6901 et. seq.) or, as it is more commonly
referred to, (RCRA), requires all operators of hazardous
waste management facilities to apply to the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or an authorized
state agency for a permit to operate the facility. In
addition to providing compliance requirements for the
private sector, (RCRA) mandates compliance for each
department, agency and instrumentality of the executive,
legislative and judicial branches of the Federal
Government (42 USC 6961, subtitle F). Subtitle F states
that the compliance is to be "... both substantive and
procedural (including any requirements for permits or
reporting or any injunctive relief and such sanctions as
may be imposed by a court to enforce such relief).
Neither the United States nor any agency, employee or
officer thereof shall be immune or exempt from any
process or sanction or any State or Federal Court with
respect to the enforcement of any such injunctive relief."
b. The applicability of (RCRA) as the primary
instrument regulating the treatment, storage, waste facilities besides those required by (RCRA), or
transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes is
underscored by 42 USC 6905, subtitle A. This part of the
law instructs EPA to avoid administrative and
enforcement duplication by integrating the program of
(RCRA) regulations to the maximum extent possible with
applicable provisions of the--
• Clean Water Act
• Safe Drinking Water Act
• Clean Air Act
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act
• Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
c. The principal source of design criteria for land
treatment/disposal facilities, is title 40, (CFR) part 264.
Other sections of the law and regulatory program, such
as the definitions in part 260 and the hazardous waste
criteria in part 261, may also influence the design of
facilities in a less direct manner. Presented in appendix
B are the parts of 40 (CFR) and the elements of those
parts pertinent to this technical manual.
d. The (RCRA) part 264 regulations consist
primarily of two sets of performance standards-one for
land disposal/land treatment units and the other for
ground-water monitoring. The first set of standards,
contained in subparts K through N of the regulations,
enumerates design and operating standards separately
tailored to surface impoundments, waste piles, land
2-1
TM 5-814-7
treatment and landfills, respectively. The second set of
standards contained in subpart F, establishes criteria for
a ground-water monitoring and response program
applicable to land disposal/land treatment facilities.
2-2. State and local regulatory requirements.
a. state cannot assume the responsibility for
regulating hazardous wastes until the administrator of
EPA determines that the state program is equivalent to
the Federal requirements. Thus, the EPA standards are
minimum requirements; nothing prevents states from
establishing additional or more stringent regulations. In a
number of states this is precisely the situation. For
example, the majority of states have laws which actively
discourage the use of land disposal for hazardous
wastes or ban burial of these materials; New York has
denied land disposal permits on the grounds that
applicants failed to provide adequately for alternative
technologies to landfilling (US Congress, Office of
Technology Assessment IOTA], 1983). In other states
the laws may require additional permits for hazardous
they may have commissions authorized to impose more
stringent land use controls than the state regulatory
program. It is therefore, necessary for the facility
designer to review the requirements of the state where
the facility is or will be located.
b. In addition, it is important to determine whether
or not the state is fully authorized to control its hazardous
waste management program. As of February 1983, 16
states were operating under cooperative arrangements
or partial authorizations; 34 states and 1 territory had
interim authorization, while 9 states had partially satisfied
the Phase II requirements leading to complete
authorization of their program.
c. The differences between states will usually be
related to the types and quantities of controlled wastes,
exemptions, geotechnical requirements, and the use of
more specific design criteria to implement part 264
performance standards. Early review of applicable state
requirements, and a comparison of their technical and
regulatory elements with the EPA program can disclose
any variations which may affect design work. Appendix
B further defines the individual state programs by
comparing the "universe of regulated wastes" with the
(RCRA) waste listing and identifying land disposal
restrictions and siting procedures for each state.
d. Local controls will be secondary to state and
federal requirements with respect to Army installations;

they will principally relate to zoning, roads and air quality.
2-3. Army regulations
a. The Department of the Army’s (DA) program for
compliance with environmental protection standards of
Federal, State, interstate and local agencies is
established by Army Regulations (AR) 200-1 and 200-2.
AR 200-1, paragraph 1-1, "prescribes (DA) policy,
responsibilities, and procedures to protect and preserve
the quality of the environment." AR 200-2, paragraph 1-1,
states (DA) policy and "establishes procedures for the
integration of environmental considerations into Army
planning and decision-making in accordance with 42
USC 4321 et. seq., the ’National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969’ (NEPA)."
b. Management programs for both hazardous
materials and hazardous wastes are described in
chapters 5 and 6 of AR 200-1. Procedures to implement
the management programs are tied to the requirements
of the primary hazardous waste/hazardous material
regulations: NEPA, RCRA, The Clean Water Act, The
Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1932, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
AR 200-1, paragraph 6-3, increases the range of
regulatory compliance by emphasizing DA’s policy on
source
2-2
TM 5-814-7
reduction, recovery and recycling.
c. AR 200-2 describes procedures that the Army
will employ to comply with the requirements set out by
NEPA. Specifically, paragraph 3-1 of the regulation
requires the DA to integrate NEPA’s "systematic
examination of the possible and probable environmental
consequences of implementing a proposed action," and
development of a written report Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). Certain categories of actions are
exempt from the above requirement; AR 200-2,
paragraph 3-3, defines the categories and associated
requirements (or exemptions). However, even if an EIS
is not required, an Environmental Assessment (EA) may
be needed (AR 200-2, para 5-1). Actions typically
requiring an EA include changes to established
installation land use which may be expected to have
some impact on the environment, and generation of
hazardous or toxic materials (AR 200-2, para 5-3).
d. AR 200-2, paragraph 3-5, states that these
environmental assessment documents "should be
forwarded to the planners, designers, and/or
implementers so that recommendations and mitigations..
. may be carried out." Prior to the start up of any
construction work, the designer (through the installation)
must ensure that required EA’s and EIS’s have been
completed and project go-ahead has been finalized.
 TM 5-814-7
CHAPTER 3

PRE-DESIGN EVALUATION OF SITE CONDITIONS

3-1. Environmental and sociopolitical conditions (1) Data sources available to the design engineer
a. An owner or operator of any facility that treats, include RCRA-related documents, installation manuals
stores, or disposes of hazardous waste must be aware of and records, and agency maps, drawings and guidance
and respond to the concerns of the public in the manuals. Source documents for each facility will vary
surrounding communities. In many cases defense depending upon the unit to be constructed or modified,
installations are physically isolated and treated as the anticipated waste stream, and the record keeping
separate entities in matters of operations management, system at the installation. Examples of these data
land use, and economics. Personnel employed on the sources include
base must respond to Army security regulations, thereby (a) RCRA-Related Documents:
defining recreational, public service and housing issues. • Part A Permit Application
b. Health and safety risks are minimized by • Part B Permit Application
allowing only authorized personnel into and around • Hazardous Waste Annual Reports
restricted hazardous waste treatment, storage or • Operating Records
disposal areas. Actual security measures for a facility • Hazardous Waste Manifests
are given in AR 200-1 and 40 CFR 264 in addition to • Interim Status Documents
specific state requirements. • Regulations (regarding design and
c. If a new Army installation were constructed, an operating parameters)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be required (b) Installation Documents:
in accordance with AR 200-2; in many cases, projects at • Design, Construction and Operating
existing facilities would also require an EIS or, at Provisions
minimum, an environmental assessment. The EIS would • Site Plans; Topographic Maps
address the sociopolitical and environmental concerns • Waste Discharge Requirements
associated with the planned hazardous waste • Environmental Impact Statements
treatment/disposal facilities. Other activities at the • Installation Assessments
installation may require the approval of local air basin • Spill Prevention Control and
authorities and water quality control boards. Countermeasure Plan
d. Transportation of hazardous waste materials off • USATHAMA Records Search Reports
site requires compliance with state and federal • Standard Operating Procedures
transportation regulations. The potential health risks • Department of Defense Form 1348-1 (Item
associated with transport of chemicals on public roads • Release/Receipt Document)
implies that the public and health officials will be • DA Form 4508 (Ammunition Transfer
concerned and involved. Record)
• Waste Inventories
• Site Photographs
3-2. Review of relevant site date • Subsurface and Foundation Investigation
Reports
a. Prior to the initiation of any design work involving • Installation Master Plan Drawings
hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal, the (c) State or Federal Agency Documents:
design engineer must become familiar with available • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
records concerning overall site conditions, and those System (NPDES) Permits
concerning waste types and quantities associated with • Installation Inspection Reports
the particular unit. If an existing unit is being modified to • US Geological Survey (USGS) Maps
treat an existing waste stream, documentation on the Federal Emergency Management (FEMA)
design and engineering aspects of the facility, as well as Flood Insurance Study
documentation on the composition and quantity of the • State Geologic and Hydrologic Maps and
waste stream should be available from on-post sources. Reports
However, if a new disposal/treatment facility is being • Design Guidance Manuals
designed and constructed to handle new waste streams (2) A number of these resource documents offer
from either on or off post, a more exhaustive data search valuable information on the composition and quantities of
will be required. wastes handled by a given facility. Table 3-1

3-1
 TM 5-814-7
Table 3-1. Composition and Quantity Data Resources
Specific Source Authority Information Available
RCRA Part A 40 CFR 270.1 Identifies, in a cursory manner, the types of wastes generated (coded according to 40
Permit Application CFR 261 Subpart D), estimated annual generation quantities, the process and
process design capacities.
RCRA Part B 40 CFR 270.14 Requires the submittal of all Interim Status Documents. Pertinent information in-
Permit Application cludes: chemical and physical analysis of hazardous wastes to be handled at the facility,
waste analysis plan, description of procedures, structures and equipment, procedures for
handling ignitable, reactive, corrosive and incompatible wastes, closure plan, plus specific
information pertaining to individual wastes treatment/disposal facilities, (e.g., waste piles,
surface impoundments).
Hazardous Waste 40 CFR 262.41 Gives a summation of all waste types and quantities generated during each year. Sub-
Annual Reports: Subpart D mitted to EPA and/or state officials.
(EPA forms 8700-13
and 8700-13A)
Hazardous Waste 40 CFR 264.70 Identifies waste transported to the site and off site; includes proper shipping names,
Manifests Subpart E hazard class (49 CFR Part 172), weight or volume, components and
concentration
range. Copies of the manifest must be kept at the facility for at least three years.
Operating Records 40 CFR 264.73 Description and quantity of each hazardous waste received and the methods and dates
of treatment, storage or disposal; records maintained until facility closure.
DD Form 1348-1: AR200-1 Identifies (DPDO) material or waste, its origination and destination, type and number
(DOD Single Line Paragraph 5-6(d) of containers, material condition, and freight classification.
Release/Receipt
Document)
Spill Prevention Section 311 of the Inventory of all sources of oil and hazardous substances
Control and Counter- Clean Water Act
measure (SPCC) Plan PL 95-217
AR 200-1 (paragraph 8-6)
National Pollutant Section 402 of the Permit specifies the type and quantities of liquid wastes that may be discharged into
Discharge Elimina- Clean Water Act the nation’s water sources.
tion System (NPDES) PL 95-217
Permit
US Army Corps of Engineers

reviews the kind of information available in some of
these documents.
(3) Interviews with facility or installation personnel in
connection with site visits will aid in the collection and
interpretation of the various sources of information on
waste generation and site conditions. The Defense
Property Disposal Office has chemical inventories of
both waste materials and off-spec supplies (being stored
for resale). Many installations have an Environmental
Office which is responsible for securing permits, record
keeping, and waste stream update information.
b. Information may also be obtained from off-site
resources. The following is a partial list of sources:
• US EPA Office of Solid Waste
• US EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
• US Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
• US Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
• US Army Corp of Engineers' Research and
Development Laboratories (WES, CERL and
CRREL)
• Defense Logistics Agency
Public Libraries (EIR, EIS, local and state requirements)
State Health Department
3-3. Hydroge9logic conditions
a. Protection of ground-water resources is a
primary concern in the design and operation of any
facility involved with the handling of wastes. The
potential for pollution can develop if wastes are placed in
improper hydrogeologic settings where wastes and/or
leachate products may easily enter the ground-water
system.
(1) Ground-water protection has been one of EPA's
central concerns in devising a regulatory strategy for
hazardous waste land disposal. A large number of the
documented damage cases for hazardous waste land
disposal have involved ground-water contamination.
Likewise the legislative history of RCRA, including the
damage cases cited in the 1976 Senate Report,
indicates that the Congress was quite concerned about
ground-water contamination when it created the
hazardous waste program. Accordingly, today's
regulations deal very explicitly with ground-water
protection.
(2) Ground-water protection can be ensured only

3-2

through a clear understanding of the hydrogeologic
environment in which the wastes are to be placed.
Hydrogeologic considerations to be addressed include:
• Review of published and unpublished data on
ground-water availability and quality
• Ground-water flow quantity and direction under
the site *
• Relationship of the site to ground-water basin
recharge areas
• Ground-water use near the site, including review
of available well logs and water well inventories
(available from some state agencies)
• Identification of uppermost aquifers
• Location of regional aquifers and aquicludes and
regional flow information
b. Protection of surface-water resources is another
important concern in the design and operation of a
hazardous waste land disposal/land treatment facility. A
surface-water assessment of the site is recommended to
determine (1) water quality of streams and other surface-
water sources within the area, and (2) the ratio of
baseflow discharge from upstream sources to any
potential permitted discharges (to determine how much
dilution occurs).
c. Information relating to regional and site
hydrogeologic conditions on the following is also
required:
• Geologic mapping of the site.
• Detailed boring logs and test pits of subsurface
soils and geology characterizing the base of the
uppermost aquifer.
• Detailed chemical analysis of all aquifers that are
potential water supply sources or which have the
potential for contamination.
• Surface elevations and drainage.
• Soil classification and geotechnical properties.
• Measurement of permeability of soils and
formations between the base of the disposal
unit and uppermost aquifer.
d. A comprehensive geotechnical testing program
might include:
• Soil classification tests.
• Compaction tests.
• Unconfined compressive strength tests.
• Triaxial compression tests.
• Direct shear tests.
• Permeability testing.
• Background contaminant level tests (EM 11102-
1906).
These tests are typically conducted in accordance with
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
methods.
e. Methods of approach for site investigations may
be found in Design of Small Dams, US Department of
Interior (1973), TM 5-818-1, NAVFAC DM 7.1 and EPA
Manual SW-963.
f. Subsurface information obtained from boring
3-3
TM 5-814-7
logs may also be supplemented by geophysical methods.
Geophysical surveys give the designer the advantage of
examining large areas at one time, facilitating the
correlation of borehole data around the site and
delineation of overall site geology. However, it is
important to note that the usefulness of a given
geophysical method is dependent on site-specific
conditions and must be assessed on a case-by-case
basis. Geophysical methods include:
(1) Electrical "E" Logs-This process involves
measuring electrical properties of soils and geologic
formations in uncased boreholes. The data collected will
yield information on potential of strata to transmit water,
occurrence of water and general water quality. Cost may
vary depending on hole depth and condition.
(2) Electrical Resistivity Survey-This method
employs vertical electrical soundings (VES) which
transmit electrical currents into the ground. The VES
may be considered an electrical "drill hole" which may
define subsurface strata. This relatively inexpensive
technique enables rapid evaluation of subsurface
conditions to a depth of approximately 200 feet.
(3) Magnetometer Survey-This method measures
magnetic intensity of rock and strata for defining geologic
structure. Magnetometer surveys can cover large areas
at minimum cost.
(4) Seismic Refraction Survey-Seismic refraction
surveys use sonic waves created by small explosions (or
sledge hammer or other vibro-mechanical means) to
map variations in bedrock hardness. These surveys can
provide information on competency of bedrock (indicative
of rock rippability) and degree of weathering, as well as
changes in these properties with depth. Seismic surveys
are capable of scanning large areas for a moderate cost.
g. Additional information on regional seismicity is
required in seismically active areas of the United States:
40 CFR 264.18 requires special seismic studies for new
hazardous waste facilities in a number of western and
midwestern states. Appendix VI to part 264 lists political
jurisdiction for which this requirement is mandated. The
design engineer is also advised to review seismic zone
maps presented in TM 5-809-10 (para 3-4) for additional
information. In seismically active areas, the services of a
soils engineer familiar with seismic engineering may be
needed to determine the effects of seismic loads to
foundations and fills caused by ground acceleration and
shaking. Static and dynamic analysis may be required to
predict potential slope failure.
h. In summary, data evaluation is critical to
individual facility siting and must consider maximum
advantage of the site's hydrogeologic and geotechnical
factors. Assessment of soil engineering properties will
dictate types of design and availability of on-site mate

rial. All facilities must be designed for specialized problems
such as seismic shaking in seismically active areas, o
expansive soils.
3-4. Climatic elements
a. Climatic conditions, particularly precipitation,
evaporation, temperature, and wind, can significantly influence
the selection, design and operation of land disposal facilities.
Adverse climatic conditions can, for example:
(1) Prevent use or operation of
• Surface Impoundments practicing evaporative
disposal of wastes, if annual precipitation is greater
than annual evaporation.
• Land Treatment facilities, if soils in the treatment area
are frozen or saturated.
(2) Restrict operation of—
• Surface Impoundments, where heavy rainfall reduces
storage capacity.
• Land Treatment facilities, where lower temperatures
will decrease biodegradation rates.
• Landfills, where (1) freezing soil or wastes interfere
with proper placement of compaction of wastes, soil
cover or earthfills, (2) accumulation of snow may
require clearing, or (3) snow melt may increase the
moisture content of the waste.
(3) Impact closure practices at impoundments and
landfills
• Disruption of the compacted soil zone through frost
heave (water migration and freezing in layers, lenses
or veins of ice).
• Sliding resulting from thawing of a shallow, saturated
zone of soil cover.
• Rainfall erosion of the soil cover.
b. Generalized climatic data are available from the
National Climatic Center of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service.
Local meteorological data is often available at Army
installations that have air fields. In addition, some states have
official weather observation stations that offer climatic data.
Selected publications which provide recorded data, frequency
and duration analyses, and general charts for various climatic
elements are listed in the references (appendix A).
c. Another source of information is the US Weather
Bureau, whose 300 first-order weather stations provide data
on:
• Daily and monthly temperature
• Dewpoint
• Precipitation
• Pressure
• Wind
• Sunshine and cloud cover
• Solar radiation
d. Weather stations also publish climatic tables of
3-4
TM 5-814-7
normal, mean and extreme values for long periods of record
and climatic maps of the United States. Design data directly
available from the US Weather Bureau include isobars for 24-
hour rainfalls and for average annual lake evaporation.
e. In addition, numerous theories, empirical correlations,
modeling procedures and charts have been developed for
defining and predicting the impact of climatic elements on
design. Those useful in designing land disposal facilities
include equations for infiltration and run off, rainfall and wind
erosion, and wind waves; depth of freezing indices; and
evaporation/evapotranspiration calculations. State and local
agencies have used available climatic data to develop charts
and tables which can be used in these predictive calculations-
including the rainfall and storm recurrence tables and rainfall
intensity/duration charts used for run-off calculations.
3-5. Impact of site conditions on selection of disposal
method
a. Most regulations dealing with disposal to land clearly
reflect the sensitive relationship between waste type, disposal
method, and potential for natural or engineered protection of
the environment at the proposed disposal facility. Sites that
are designed to accept only solid, generally inert substances,
obviously require fewer natural containment features than do
those intended for liquid hazardous waste. Similarly, siting of
waste piles or land treatment facilities may be far less
restrictive than siting of impoundments.
b. Site conditions which obviously prohibit development
of a disposal site of any type are wetlands and locations in
critical aquifer recharge areas. Site conditions that impact
selection of disposal methods fall into three basic areas (1)
ability for ground-water protection, (2) potential for surface
water contact with wastes, and (3) availability of materials
required by each disposal method. Almost any negative site
condition can be overcome by engineering designs; however,
these engineering solutions can often result in unacceptable
economic impacts and/or regulatory monitoring requirements.
(1) In selecting a disposal method, two key elements
regarding ground-water protection must be considered: (1)
vertical separation of wastes from the uppermost ground-
water, and (2) permeability of the subsurface material
providing the hydraulic separation. These two elements are
interrelated. Far less separation between waste and ground-
water can be tolerated in a low permeability clay environment
than in a site underlain by sand and gravel. However, design
considerations of the natural ground-water setting can be
greatly influenced by regulations mandated by 40 CFR 264
requiring the placement of impermeable liners beneath
landfills, impoundments and waste piles.
 TM 5-814-7
(a) Surface impoundments should be sited and (3) Each disposal type has its own soil requirements
designed with maximum protection of ground water for construction and operation. Although all materials
provided by liners, low permeability clay (10-8 cm/sec) can be imported from off-site sources, project costs can,
underlying soils, and maximum separation. The as a result, become prohibitive. In sites located in areas
hydraulic head formed in the impoundment provides for a underlain by shallow cemented bedrock, nearly all soil
high potential for liquid seepage and subsurface materials may need to be imported; as a result, costs for
migration. landfilling in such areas can be prohibitive. Sites
(b) Since potential for buildup of hydraulic head underlain by clay deposits significantly reduce the cost of
in landfills and waste piles is much less than for construction of all types of disposal facilities. Below is a
impoundments, siting criteria can be somewhat relaxed summary of soil needs for different disposal methods:
for these facilities. With liners beneath the waste, soils
with permeabilities in the vicinity of 10-6 cm/sec (silts, Disposal Type Soil Needs
silty clays) may be acceptable separation materials. Landfill Daily and intermediate cover;
(c) In land treatment facilities little or no a variety of soil types are
hydraulic head buildup is created; however, strict acceptable.
operational criteria are required by RCRA to ensure their Final cover soils must be low
protection. Such facilities can be located in most locales permeability clays.
that provide a minimum separation from groundwater of Liner soil must be clay.
approximately 10 feet, and moderately low permeability Surface Liner soil must be low
soils (10-4 to 10-5 cm/sec-silty sands, silts). Impoundments permeability clay.
(d) Limitations in locating injection wells are Waste Piles Liner soil must be low per-
discussed in paragraph 5-5. meability clay.
(2) Isolation of wastes from surface water is a major Land Treatment Treatment zone must have
concern in the design and locating of all disposal minimum of 5 feet of suitable
methods. It is highly recommended that disposal units soil, as described in section
be located out of a 100-year flood plain and away from 5-4 b (2).
topographic areas prone to flash flooding and/or severe
erosion; avoidance of flood plain areas may be 3-6. Design requirements imposed by hydrogeologic
mandatory for certain types of hazardous wastes. All conditions
disposal modes (landfills, impoundments, etc.) should be Less than ideal hydrogeologic conditions can be
designed with drainage diversion and surface run on overcome by engineering designs in all but the most
protection and isolation facilities (i.e., berms, dikes, etc.). extreme conditions. However, the site owner/operator
High design and construction costs may be associated must be aware that great expense may be involved in
with sites located within flood areas and/or in areas these engineering solutions, and may make the project
requiring diversion of surface runoff from large economically unfeasible. Table 3-2 summarizes the
upgradient watersheds. With proper facility design, major design/operational requirements imposed by
surface water conditions should not be a major factor in unfavorable hydrogeologic conditions.
selection of a disposal type, but only in selection of
design criteria.

3-5
 TM 5-814-7
Table 3-2. Design/Operational Requirements
Imposed by Hydrogeologic Conditions

Unfavorable Hydrogeologic Conditions Requirements

Ground Water
High ground-water table Placement of impermeable liners; dewatering systems to lower ground
water; increased monitor
High permeability soils ing.

Surface Water
Within flood plain Construction of perimeter dikesnevees; liners to interrupt connection
between ground and surface
Inter-related to shallow ground waters; construction of drainage diversion facilities.
water beneath facility
Extensive upgradient watershed
Faults Location of facilities outside of a fault buffer zone.
Soils
Inadequate soils for cover or Importation of soils that meet regulatory requirements.
impermeable barriers*
Active Karst Zones
Sinkhole-prone areas Location of facilities outside of active Karst zones is recommended.
Solution channels
*As used here, inadequate means either (1) unable to meet regulatory requirements for soil type and permeability, or
(2) insufficient quantities to meet design/operational needs.

US Army Corps of Engineers

3-6

CHAPTER 4 DISPOSAL AND HANDLING
CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY WASTE COMPOSITION
4-1. Impact of the waste stream on selection of
disposal type.
a. The physical state of the hazardous waste and
the chemical characteristics of the waste are the two
most important factors to be evaluated in selecting the
appropriate disposal option. With respect to physical
state, disposal options at Army installations for bulk liquid
hazardous wastes and sludges with leachable liquids are
limited to surface impoundments and, in certain special
cases, injection wells. The latter, rarely used because of
the hydrogeologic constraints inherent in their siting, are
suitable for large quantities of aqueous wastes, including
acids, alkalies, inorganic brines and oily waste waters
(see chapter 5).
b. Most solid hazardous wastes are disposed of in
landfills; however, small quantities of semi-solid and solid
hazardous wastes such as mine tailings are stored or
treated in waste piles. It is important to note that RCRA
regulations stipulate that waste piles may not be used as
an ultimate disposal method; if the owner/operator of a
waste pile wants to dispose of the accumulated wastes,
he must obtain a landfill permit and manage the pile as a
landfill.
c. The second major factor concerning the waste
stream that impacts selection of disposal type is the
chemical/physical characteristics of the waste.
Restrictions based on these characteristics are that
ignitable or reactive wastes may not be placed in a
facility unless the waste is rendered non-ignitable or non-
reactive and incompatible wastes may not be placed in
the same facility.
4-2. Design and handling constraints imposed by
waste composition
a. The physical and chemical characteristics of a
particular waste impose the primary constraints in
managing these wastes. Characteristics which must be
considered include ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity,
compatibility and physical state (liquid or a solid). Other
composition factors which must be evaluated are the
chemical makeup of the waste, its mobility in soil (and
water), metal concentrations and, indirectly, the
containerization method.
b. Ignitability and reactivity are defined in 40 CFR
261. These definitions, in combination with the federal
requirements given in the Hazardous Waste Permit
Program outline the requirements and waste composition
constraints for individual hazardous waste facilities;
surface impoundments, waste piles, land treat
4-1
TM 5-814-7
ment and landfills. In general, ignitable or reactive waste
must not be placed in a hazardous waste facility unless
"the waste is treated, rendered, or mixed before or
immediately after placement so that the resulting waste,
mixture, or dissolution of material no longer meets the
definition of ignitable or reactive waste" (40 CFR 264).
c. Incompatible wastes may not be treated or
disposed of unless the owner or operator takes
precautions to prevent reactions which: (1) Generate
extreme heat or pressure, fire or explosions, or violent
reactions.
(2) Produce uncontrolled toxic mists, fumes,
dusts, or gases in sufficient quantities to threaten human
health or the environment.
(3) Produce uncontrolled flammable fumes or
gases in sufficient quantities to pose a risk of fire or
explosions.
(4) Damage the structural integrity of the
device or facility.
(5) Threaten human health or the environment
through similar means.
d. The owner or operator of a waste pile must also
physically separate any pile containing wastes potentially
incompatible with materials stored nearby in containers,
open tanks, etc., by means of a dike, wall, berm, or
similar means.
e. Chemical composition may also impose some
handling/disposal constraints. For example, if the waste
material is defined as toxic by the EPA Extraction
Procedure Toxicity Characteristic (40 CFR 261.24) or the
Acute Hazardous Waste Designation [40 CFR
261.11(2)], special handling or disposal methods may be
required. Another impact the design engineer should
consider is the potential effect of toxic organic emissions
from the treatment/disposal of selected halogenated
organic compounds; several states are now considering
the elimination of disposal of these materials.
4-3. Waste analysis plan
a. 40 CFR 264, subpart B, requires that owners or
operators of all hazardous waste management facilities
obtain a chemical and physical analysis of a
representative sample of all waste to be managed by
their facilities. At a minimum, the analysis must contain
all the information necessary to treat, store, or dispose of
the wastes properly in accordance with part 264.
b. The analysis may include data from part 261

(Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste), and
existing published or documented data on the hazardous
waste or on hazardous waste generated from similar
processes. At a minimum the plan must specify: (1) The
waste sampling method used to obtain a representative
sample.
(2) The parameters selected for laboratory
analysis for each waste, including those required in
subparts J through Q.
(3) The rationale for selection of these
parameters for laboratory analysis.
(4) The methods or procedures applied during
laboratory analysis.
(5) The frequency of sampling and analysis to
be conducted on subsequent shipments of the same
waste to ensure that the analysis is accurate and up to
date.
(6) For off-site facilities, the sampling methods
and procedures used to identify each movement of
hazardous waste to ensure that the wastes are the same
as those indicated on the accompanying manifest or
shipping paper.
c. 40 CFR 264.13(aX3) requires that the plan be up
4-2
TM 5-814-7
dated and changed as needed to remain accurate.
d. The waste analysis plan must include analytical
methods to determine ignitability (section 261.21),
reactivity (section 261.23) and incompatibility (appendix
V, part 264) with respect to the disposal/treatment
method. Section 264.17 gives the general requirements
for handling these types of wastes and outlines waste
constituent constraints which should be considered in
developing the waste analysis plan.
e. Each facility also has unique identification
(analysis) requirements which would be contained in the
waste analysis plan. For example, a "trial test" is
required whenever a "substantially different" waste or
process is introduced to a surface impoundment; land
treatment and landfill operations require the
owner/operator to obtain information on the composition,
characteristics, and mobility of the wastes to determine
the extent of closure and post-closure care which will be
necessary to protect human health and the environment.
f. Analytical methods, to ensure compliance with
the regulatory requirements, are contained in EPA SW-
846.

CHAPTER 5
LAND DISPOSAL/LAND TREATMENT OPTIONS
5-1. Introduction
a. This chapter of the manual presents a general
discussion of landfills, surface impoundments, land
treatment, deep well injection and waste piles with
respect to:
• Wastes Suitable for Disposal
• Limitations of Each Disposal Option
• Disposal Procedures
• Design Elements
• Equipment
b. The treatment of each of these topics is brief,
focusing on the needs of the design engineer. Where
appropriate, reference has been made to source
documents for additional information on these topics.
With respect to design elements, this chapter
summarizes the elements required for each of the five
disposal options at Army installations. Since these
elements constitute the key design tools for meeting
RCRA requirements for hazardous waste land
treatment/disposal facilities, they are treated in detail in
chapter 6.
c. Table 5-1 lists the design elements required for
DA land disposal/land treatment facilities and refers to
the sections of the manual where these are discussed in
detail. Figure 5-1 presents a conceptual layout of a
hazardous waste facility master plan with landfill, surface
impoundment, land treatment, and waste pile units.
d. The design engineer should be familiar with
closure requirements for a given unit; therefore, these
are
TM 5-814-7
included in this chapter for each disposal option under
the section on Design Elements. Closure standards,
mandated by 40 CFR 264, subpart G, are designed to
extend protection of human health and the environment
beyond the active life of a facility.
e. As defined by RCRA, each of the disposal
options has characteristics that distinguishes it from the
others; however, as noted below, some overlapping in
definition occurs with landfills and surface
impoundments. The RCRA definitions of these five
disposal options are summarized below.
(1) A landfill is defined in 40 CFR 260.10 as a
disposal facility or part of a facility where hazardous
waste in bulk or containerized form is placed in or on
land, typically in excavated trenches or cells. However,
DA hazardous waste landfills must not accept bulk
liquids or sludges with leachable liquids.
(2) A surface impoundment, according to 40
CFR 262.10, is a facility (or part of a facility) that is a
natural topographic depression, man-made excavation,
or diked area formed primarily of earthen materials
(although it may be lined with man-made materials)
designed to hold an accumulation of liquid wastes or
wastes containing free liquid. According to this definition,
a surface impoundment is assumed to have a fluid
surface and hold non-containerized free bulk liquids.
Examples of surface impoundments are holding,
storage, settling, and aeration pits, ponds, and lagoons.
Surface impoundments can be classified as disposal,
storage or treatment facilities, as follows:

Table 5-1. Design Features Required by RCRA

a
For DA Land Disposal/land Treatment Facilities
Disposal/Land Treatment Facilities
b
Facility Elements Reference Surface Waste Piles Land Landfills
Impoundments Treatment
Liner System C 6-3 Required Required NA Required
Leak Detection System 6-4 Required Required NA Required
Monitoring Wells 8-3 Required Required Required Required
Leachate Collection and 6-4 NA Required NA Required
Removal Systems
Run-on/Run-off Controls 6-5 Required Required Required Required
Wind Dispersal Controls 6-8 NA Required Required Required
Overtopping Controls 6-8 Required NA NA NA
Cap (Final Cover) 6-7 Required (disposal) NA NA Required
Closure and Post- 5-2, 5-3, Required (disposal) NA Required Required
Closure Care 5-4
a
Injection wells are excluded from this table since their design features are unique. See paragraph 5-5 of this manual.
b
Paragraph(s) in this TM describing the design feature.
c
Double liners are required at all DA installations unless a waiver is obtained from HQ, (DAEN-ECE-G), Washington, DC
20314
US Army Corps of Engineers.
5-1
 TM 5-814-7

Figure 5-1. Illustrative hazardous waste master plan.

5-2

(a) Disposal-Hazardous wastes
remain after closure.
(b) Storage-Wastes are held for a
temporary period and removed at closure.
(c) Treatment-Wastes are modified
physically or chemically to render them less toxic,
mobile, or otherwise less hazardous.
(3) A land treatment unit is a facility or part
of a facility at which hazardous waste is applied onto or
incorporated into the soil surface. As provided in 40
CFR 264, subpart M, a waste must not be land treated
unless the hazardous constituents in the waste can be
degraded, transformed or immobilized in the treatment
zone (ranging up to 5 feet in depth). Units designed
primarily for the purpose of dewatering without treatment
are considered surface impoundments rather than land
treatment units. Land treatment units are unlike other
land disposal units in that they are not designed and
operated to minimize all releases to ground-water;
rather, they are open systems that allow liquids to move
out of the unit.
(4) Underground injection is the subsurface
emplacement of fluids through a bored, drilled, or driven
well, or through a dug well, wherein the depth of the dug
well is greater than the largest surface dimension.
Septic tanks or cesspools used to dispose of hazardous
waste have been specifically included in the RCRA
definition of injection well.
(5) A waste pile is any non-containerized
accumulation of solid, non-flowing hazardous waste that
is used for treatment or storage; however, waste piles
may not be used to intentionally dispose of wastes. If the
owner or operator of a waste pile wishes to dispose of
wastes, he must apply for a landfill permit and manage
the pile as a landfill. Piles are generally small, and many
are in buildings or maintained outside on concrete or
other pads. They are frequently used to accumulate
waste before shipment, treatment, or disposal and are
typically composed of a single dry material.
5-2. Landfills
a. Suitable wastes. The primary restriction on
landfilling of hazardous wastes is the elimination of liquid
disposal. Bulk liquids or sludges with leachable liquids
must not be landfilled at DA hazardous waste facilities;
disposal of such wastes will be permitted only in surface
impoundments. RCRA regulations permit disposal of
small quantities of liquids in small containers in an
overpack drum (lab pack), provided that the latter
contains sufficient absorbent material to absorb all of the
liquid contents of the inside containers. The inside
containers must be non-leaking and compatible with the
contained waste. The overpack drum must be an open
head DOT-specification metal shipping container of no
more than 110-gallon capacity. Batteries,
5-3
TM 5-814-7
capacitors or similar non-storage containers which
contain free liquids may not be landfilled. Acutely
hazardous wastes such as carcinogens must be
solidified prior to disposal, regardless of their quantities.
b. Disposal constraints. Landfills should be
sited in a hydrogeologic setting that provides maximum
isolation of the waste from ground-water. This is
achieved by vertical separation of wastes from the
uppermost ground-water, and low permeability of the
subsurface material providing the hydraulic separation.
In addition, the landfill must be located above the 100-
year flood level and not interfere with major surface
drainage.
(1) Ideally, the soils in the area should be
suitable for daily cover as well as final cover. In cold
regions where frost penetration is significant (3 to 6 feet),
the cover material should be stockpiled and maintained
in as dry a condition as possible to facilitate wintertime
operations.
(2) Location of landfills in karst terrain (or
similar geologic formations) and in seismic zones 3 and
4 (as defined in TM 5-809-10) should be avoided
whenever possible. However, if landfills are sited in such
areas, the following precautions should be taken:
(a) An extensive geological
investigation must be performed to ensure that the
facility is not located on or in the near vicinity of sink
holes or caverns and that the soil and rock in the area
are suitable for location of this type of facility.
(b) After the final site selection has
been completed, USACE (DAEN-ECE-G) shall be
notified of proposed location and geological conditions.
This notification shall be made a minimum of 30 days
before design begins.
c. Procedures. Disposal by landfilling involves
placement of wastes in a secure containment system
that consists of double liners, a leak detection system, a
leachate collection system and final cover. Wastes
delivered to the landfill are unloaded by forklift or front-
end loaders and placed in the active waste lift.
Hazardous materials shall be segregated in cells or
subcells according to physical and chemical
characteristics to prevent mixing of incompatible wastes.
Following their placement, the hazardous wastes are
covered with sufficient soil to prevent wind dispersal.
Successive lifts are placed and the cover soil graded so
that any direct precipitation is collected in a sump. All
direct precipitation collected in the sump is tested for
contamination. As filling continues, wastes are placed so
as to direct any run off toward a temporary sump at the
lower segment of the base liner. For operations during
extremely wet conditions, tarps may be used to cover the
active area to minimize infiltration of rainfall. In high
rainfall regions, semi-permanent roof/rainfall protection
can be installed over the entire cell using either rigid or
stress-tensioned structures

The structure should be designed to prevent all rainfall
from entering the cell until final cover is completed; then
it is dismantled and erected over the next cell. Another
alternative to operations during extremely wet weather is
to containerize or store wastes until the rainfall season is
over. As areas of the secure landfill are filled to final
grade, a final soil cover is installed in accordance with
the facility’s operation plan. Figure 5-2 illustrates a
typical landfill operations plan.
d. The major design elements of hazardous
wastes landfills, discussed in detail in chapter 6, are:
• Double liners
• A leak detection system between the liners
• A leachate collection and removal system
above the liner
• Run-on and run-off control systems
• A final cover to minimize infiltration of
precipitation into the closed landfill
(1) The base liner system is designed and
constructed to prevent migration of wastes during the
active life of the disposal unit into the liner, and out of the
landfill into subsurface soil, ground-water or surface
water. A leak detection system between the double
liners enables the detection and removal of any seepage,
and evaluation of liner performance.
(2) Located above the double liners is the
leachate collection and removal system, which consists
of slotted drainage pipes designed to collect leachate
that flows under the influence of gravity to low points
within the landfill. The leachate collection and removal
system must be designed and operated to ensure that
the depth of leachate over the liner does not exceed 1
foot.
e. Closure. Closure of a landfill is achieved by
installing a final cover which has a permeability less than
or equal to that of the bottom liner. The cover should be
capable of (1) minimizing infiltration of liquids, (2)
functioning with minimum maintenance, (3) promoting
drainage and minimizing erosion of cover, and (4)
accommodating settling and subsidence.
f. Equipment needs. Secure landfills require
equipment for (1) handling wastes and cover material,
(2) performing support functions, (3) spill and fire control,
and (4) decontamination. For waste handling, a forklift
and a front-end loader are typically used to unload and
place containers and solid materials in assigned active
waste lifts. Dozers and self-loading scrapers are used to
spread and compact cover material. For grading final
surfaces, the crawler dozer is effective; it can
economically doze earth over distances up to 300 feet.
Scrapers can haul cover material economically over
relatively long distances (more than 1, 000 feet). Since
construction equipment is heavy when loaded,
precautions must be taken in placing initial lifts of wastes
over the base liner. Subsequent lifts of bulk wastes and
soil cover should be consoli-
5-4
TM 5-814-7
dated by compactors to minimize settlement.
(1) Support equipment for a secure landfill
may include a road grader, water truck, pickup trucks
and vacuum trucks. The road grader can be used to
maintain dirt and gravel roads on the site, to grade the
soil cover, and to maintain any unlined drainage
channels surrounding the fill. Water trucks range from
converted tank trucks to highly specialized, heavy
vehicles that are generally used in road construction
operations. They are used at the landfill for construction,
to control dust, and if necessary, fight fires.
(2) In accordance with 40 CFR 264.32, all
facilities must be equipped with communication or alarm
systems, fire control equipment, spill control equipment,
and decontamination equipment (unless an exemption is
obtained from the EPA Regional Administrator [RA]).
Paragraph 7-1 describes procedures and equipment
required for facility contingency plans.
(3) All equipment used to unload and
place wastes must be decontaminated before being
taken out of the disposal operation and staging area.
Incoming vehicles not used in the unloading operation
should be restricted to staging areas, or clean soil areas
within the landfill.
5-3. Surface Impoundments
a. Wastes suitable for impoundments.
Surface impoundments are used for the evaporation and
treatment of bulk aqueous wastes. Typical DA wastes
which would be considered appropriate for
impoundments include waste acids and rinse water with
traces of propellant. Reactive wastes must not be
placed in a surface impoundment unless they are made
nonreactive and defined in 40 CFR 261.23. Since mixing
of wastes is inherent in a surface impoundment,
incompatible wastes should not be placed in the same
impoundment. The potential dangers from the mixing of
incompatible wastes include extreme heat, fire,
explosion, violent reaction, production of toxic mists,
fumes, dusts, or gases, and damage to the structural
integrity of the surface impoundment. Clearly the
potential inpacts on human health or the environment
which could result from such conditions must be avoided.
b. Disposal constraints. Surface
impoundments should be located in a hydrogeologic
setting that limits vertical and horizontal hydraulic
continuity with ground-water. Surface impoundments
should be sited and designed with maximum protection
of groundwater provided by liners, and low-permeability
underlying soils. The hydraulic head formed in the
impoundment provides for a high potential for liquid
seepage and subsurface migration. The precautions
concerning location of landfills in karst terrain or seismic
zones 3 and 4 also pertain to surface impoundments
(see para 5-2b(2)).
 TM 5-814-7

Figure 5-2. Landfill operations plan.

5-5

c. Procedures. Impoundment of hazardous waste
involves disposing of liquid wastes in a man-made
excavation or diked area that ranges in surface area
from tenths to hundreds of acres. Wastes are typically
delivered to the impoundment by pipe systems or bulk
tankers which offload into the impoundment at a
"discharge apron."
(1) During the time that the liquid wastes are
impounded, operations include, but are not limited to, the
following inspection activities:
• Monitoring to ensure that liquids do not rise
into the freeboard (prevention of overtopping)
• Inspecting containment berms for signs of
leakage or erosion
• Periodic sampling, if needed, of the
impounded wastes for selected chemical
parameters
• Inspecting periodically for floral and faunal
activities (such as animal burrows) that could
cause leaks through earthen dikes, levees or
embankments
• Monitoring of leak detection systems
(2) The major operations at an impoundment
involve "removal" of the liquid waste. There are a
number of different methods for removing liquid wastes;
each method must be implemented in accordance with
the standards described in this manual. Waste removal
methods include:
(a) Decanting-Liquids within or ponded on
the surface of the impoundment can be removed by
gravity flow or pumping to a treatment facility if there is
not a large percentage of settleable solids.
(b) Pumping and settling-Liquids or
slurries composed of suspended or partially suspended
solids can be removed by pumping into a lined settling
pond and then decanting. Sludges are disposed of in a
dry state, and either returned to the impoundment or
disposed of in another contained site.
(c) Solar drying-Liquids are removed by
evaporation; sludges remaining after evaporation are left
in the impoundment or disposed of in another contained
site. Note that volatile organics shall not be handled in
this manner.
(d) Chemical neutralization-Aqueous
waste with low levels of hazardous constituents
frequently lends itself to chemical neutralization and
subsequent normal discharge under NPDES permit
requirements.
(e) Infiltration-Certain aqueous waste can
be handled by infiltration through soil, provided that the
hazardous substances are removed by either soil
attenuation or underdrain collection of the solute.
Collected solutes are usually treated.
(f) Process reuse-Some aqueous waste
can be recycled in the manufacturing process a number
of times until the contaminants are at a level requiring
disposal by one of the methods previously mentioned.
5-6
TM 5-814-7
Reuse does not dispose of the waste but can
significantly reduce the quantities requiring disposal.
(g) Addition of Absorbents-Materials can
be added to aqueous impounded wastes to absorb free
liquids. Absorbents include fly ash, kiln dust and
commercially available sorbents. The designer should
avoid selecting biodegradable absorbents such as straw
or rice, since they can decompose, resulting in the
formation of landfill gas, or contribute to void space,
which might lead to subsidence.
(3) Cleaning and closure processes normally
involve removal of waste residuals from the
impoundment. Removal methods for settled residues
and contaminated soil include removal of the sediment
as a slurry by hydraulic dredging; excavation of the
sediments with a jet of high-pressure water or air;
vacuum transport of powdery sediments; or excavation
of hard solidified sediments by either dragline, front-end
loader or bulldozer. Sediments removed by one of these
methods may require dewatering to comply with EPA
guidelines for disposal.
(4) When residual wastes will be left in the
impoundment at closure (e.g., the impoundment is used
for disposal), the wastes must be stabilized to a bearing
capacity sufficient to support the final cover. Typically,
stabilization is achieved by either passive (evaporation)
or active dewatering. Active processes, including
mechanical dewatering or thermal drying, are described
in EPA SW-873.
d. Design elements. Basic design requirements for
surface impoundments mandated by 40 CFR 264
include:
(1) Double liners with a leak detection system
and monitoring wells to prevent wastes from migrating
into subsurface soil and ground water and surface water
during the active life of the site (see figures 6-2 and 6-5).
(2) Prevention of overtopping the sides of the
impoundment.
(3) Construction specifications that ensure the
structural integrity of dikes.
e. Closure. As specified in 40 CFR 264, a surface
impoundment can be closed in one of two ways: (1)
Removing or decontaminating all wastes, waste
residues, system components (such as liners), subsoils
and structures or equipment. No post-closure care is
required as long as removal or decontamination is
complete.
(2) Removing liquid waste or solidifying the
remaining waste. A final cover will be placed over the
closed impoundment. Post-closure care will consist of
monitoring ground-water and conducting corrective
action if it is warranted (see para 8-5), and maintaining
the effectiveness of the final cover. For a doublelined
disposal unit, the leak detection system will be monitored
as part of post-closure care.

f. Equipment needs. Equipment for surface
impoundments includes that needed for
• Removal of liquid from the impoundment.
• Removal of settled residuals and
contaminated soil.
• Dewatering sediments prior to their final
disposal.
• Solidification and stabilization of residual
wastes.
(1) At the time of closure, impounded liquid can
be removed by a number of methods described in
paragraph 5-3c; typical equipment used for this purpose
is a centrifugal pump or a hydraulic pipeline dredge.
Waste residuals can be removed by means of a vacuum
truck to pump slurried sediment from the impoundment,
a rotary cutter to remove hardened sediments that do not
flow freely, or a dragline or front-end loader to excavate
hard, solidified sediments. To dewater sediments, filter
presses may be used to produce a nonflowable solid.
(2) Any equipment used for liquid sediment
removal or dewatering must be decontaminated before
being taken out of the disposal operation area.
5-4. Land Treatment
a. Suitable Wastes. Land treatment is potentially a
cost-effective method of disposing of industrial wastes
such as bulk organic sludges that have a high water
content. A variety of industrial wastes, effluents, sludges
and solid wastes are suitable for treatment and disposal
by the land treatment method, including those containing
or derived from hazardous constituents listed in appendix
VIII of 40 CFR 261. However, for wastes that contain
very high concentrations of toxic organics, a disposal
method other than land treatment is required.
(1) Hazardous waste land treatment facilities
must include plans for conducting a treatment
demonstration and reporting the complete demonstration
results. The objective of the demonstration is to
establish the operating practices that will completely
degrade, transform or immobilize hazardous
constituents. Regardless of the demonstration method
selected, the following criteria must be met:
• Accurate simulation of the characteristics
and operating conditions of the proposed
treatment unit, including
-waste characteristics
-climate in the area
-regional topography
-soil characteristics and depth of the
treatment zone
-operating practices to be used
• Complete degradation, transformation, or
immobilization in the treatment zone of the
hazardous constituents in the waste
5-7
TM 5-814-7
• Operation of the land treatment unit in a
manner that protects human health and the
environment
(2) Additional information on conducting a
treatment demonstration, selecting appropriate field
tests, and designing test procedures for the
demonstration is presented in EPA SW-874.
(3) Special requirements for ignitable or
reactive wastes and for incompatible wastes are
contained in 40 CFR 264.281 and 264.282. Ignitable
and reactive wastes must be immediately incorporated
into the soil so that they are no longer considered
ignitable or reactive. They must also be protected from
any material or condition that could cause ignition or
reaction. Incompatible wastes, such as those listed in
appendix V of 40 CFR 264, may not be placed in the
same treatment zone unless precautions are taken to
avoid fires, explosion and violent reactions, the
generation of heat and pressure, the production of toxic
mists, fumes and gas, or the creation of other conditions
that might threaten human health or the environment.
Federal regulations (40 CFR 264.276) also outline
special requirements for application of cadmium and
other hazardous wastes to lands used for growth of food-
chain crops.
b. The land treatment option is limited by (1) the
availability of sufficient quantities of usable land, (2) the
assimilative capacity of the plant-soil system, (3)
regulatory restrictions concerning food-chain crops, and
(4) environmental conditions.
(1) The availability of sufficient quantities of
usable land is dependent upon a number of additional
limiting factors, including the application rate and
regulatory requirements specifying the depth of the
treatment zone.
(a) The application rate is dependent not
only on the waste constituent, but also on the
assimilative capacity of the soil (see EPA SW-874).
While it is theoretically possible to specify land
application rates and required land areas for most
wastes, in practice, the complete degradation,
transformation or immobilization of some constituents
would require application over such large tracts of land
that land treatment would not be cost-effective.
Economic factors might therefore preclude land
treatment of some wastes.
(b) With respect to the treatment zone,
EPA regulations require that the zone which wastes are
introduced be no deeper than 5 feet and that there be a
3-foot separation between the bottom of the treatment
zone and the seasonal high water table. These
requirements could limit land treatment in certain areas.
(2) The second factor limiting the land
treatment option is the assimilative capacity of the plant-
soil system to handle a particular hazardous waste; this
is a complex limiting factor due to the large number of
variables within the system. Among these are the
physical, chemical, and biological properties of the

particular soil, the compatibility of the soil and the waste
to be treated, and the capacity of the soil to receive and
transmit water (hydraulic capacity). These variables are
described in detail in Overcash, 1981, a definitive text on
land treatment. In addition to identifying the factors
limiting land treatment as a disposal option, Overcash
presents detailed procedures for the design of land
treatment systems for all waste types.
(3) The third limiting factor, regulatory
restrictions concerning food-chain crops, is also
complex. For most hazardous constituents, RCRA
stipulates that there can be no uptake by food-chain
crops and no greater concentration of the constituents in
the crop than is found in the surrounding area. As
summarized in 40 CFR 264.276, the owner/operator of a
land treatment unit must demonstrate that there is no
"substantial risk to human health caused by the growth of
such crops in or on the treatment zone."
(a) This objective may be met either by
demonstrating that hazardous constituents will not be
transferred to food or feed portions of a crop, or will not
occur in greater concentrations in or on identical crops
grown on untreated soils under similar conditions in the
same region. Both of these options require that the
following be addressed: crop uptake, physical adherence
to the crop, and direct ingestion of contaminated soil by
grazing animals.
(b) With respect to hazardous wastes
containing cadmium, even more restrictive limitations
apply. If such wastes are to be land treated, the
following criteria must be met:
• A pH of at least 6.5
• An application rate of no more than 0.44
lb/acres/yr
• Limits on cumulative application, as dictated
by the soil's caution exchange capacity
• Special conditions for animal feed (specific
details are outlined in 40 CFR 264.276)
(4) The last limiting factor, environmental
conditions, actually refers to a number of natural features
that restrict the siting of a land treatment unit. The
precautions concerning location of landfills in karst
terrain or seismic zones 3 and 4 also pertain to land
treatment facilities (see para 5-2b(2)). In general,
limiting environmental conditions should either be
avoided or should serve as design constraints in
developing the facility layout. These include:
• Hydrogeologic Conditions
-Bedrock outcrops
-Irregularities such as fissures or faults -
Aquifer recharge zones
-Flood-prone areas such as river flood plains
-Wetlands
-Karst terrain
-Seasonally high water tables (< 4-6 ft)
5-8
TM 5-814-7
-Proximity to private or community water
supply wells or reservoirs
• Climate
-Location upwind of large populations
-Extremely wet or cold conditions
• Topography -Steep slopes -Broken terrain
• Soils
-Thin soil above ground-water
-Saline soils
-Highly permeable soils above shallow
ground water
-Soils with extreme erosion potential
• Land use -Areas formerly used for landfills
-Areas contaminated with persistent
residues from past chemical spills or waste
treatment processing
c. Procedures. Land treatment is both a method of
disposal and a treatment mechanism. It involves
applying a waste to land and incorporating it into the soil,
where it undergoes biochemical action which attenuates
its negative impact on the environment. A number of
techniques are available for applying the waste,
depending largely on the wastewater content, but also
hinging on such considerations as soil properties,
topography and climate.
(1) For land application purposes, wastes are
generally classified as
* Liquid (less than 8 percent solids, with particle
diameters less than 1 inch)
* Semiliquid (8 to 15 percent solids and/or particle
diameters greater than 1 inch)
* Solid (greater than 15 percent solids)
(2) Application of liquid wastes is generally
accomplished by either spraying the waste on the land
with sprinklers or by using flood or furrow irrigation
techniques. Semiliquid sludges are normally applied by
surface spreading, with subsequent incorporation into
the soil, or by subsurface injection 4 to 8 inches below
the soil surface. Low-moisture solids are spread on the
surface and later incorporated into the soil (figure 5-3).
(3) Waste volatility, site terrain and weather
conditions may dictate the choice of other application
techniques, regardless of the water content of the waste.
For example, highly volatile wastes should not be applied
by irrigation or surface spreading, but be injected at least
6 inches below the soil surface. On steep slopes or in
freezing weather, alternatives to spray irrigation will
likewise be required. The objectives in any land
treatment system, regardless of method used, are
uniform application of wastes, and use of application
rates within the assimilative capacity of the soil.
 TM 5-814-7

Figure 5-3. Land treatment area details.

5-9

d. Design elements. Design requirements, as well
as requirements for construction, operation and
maintenance, of a land treatment facility are specified in
the facility permit to ensure compliance with regulations.
The design goal must be to maximize the degradation,
transformation or immobilization of hazardous
constituents in the specified treatment zone, in
accordance with all design and operating conditions used
in the treatment demonstration; and minimize both runoff
of hazardous constituents from the treatment area and
inflow of water into the treatment area.
(1) Fulfillment of these specific design
requirements, as well as meeting the principal design
goal of nondegradation of the land, requires a number of
steps, including analysis of the waste stream and site soil
characteristics, evaluation of waste-soil interactions and
site assimilative capacity, determination of application
rate, selection of an application method, and layout of the
facility and control structures.
(2) 40 CFR 264.278 of RCRA requires an
unsaturated zone monitoring program for all land
treatment units to determine whether hazardous
constituents have migrated below the treatment zone.
Soil and soil pore liquid must be monitored on a
background plot and immediately below the treatment
zone. If any migration is detected, the owner/operator of
the land treatment unit must notify the EPA Regional
Administration (RA) of this finding within seven days.
Within 90 days the owner/operator should recommend
modifications to the facility permit that will maximize
treatment of hazardous constituents within the treatment
zone.
(3) There are several possible configurations
for a land treatment facility, including single cell, rotating
cell and progressive cell configurations. In the single cell
configuration a waste is applied uniformly over the
required acreage without subdividing the land treatment
area. In the progressive cell configuration (figure 5-3),
the land treatment unit is subdivided into cells or areas
which are treated sequentially, cultivated and
revegetated.
(4) Adequate buffer zones should be provided
between the land treatment unit and property boundaries
to minimize odor problems, permit easy access to water
retention facilities, and allow implementation of
contingency measures to control unusual runoff.
(5) To protect ground-water, surface waters
and off-site property, water management facilities must
be designed and coordinated with application method
and facility configuration. The amount of water which
contacts treatment areas (run on) must be minimized,
and run off from treated areas must be collected and
treated prior to discharge, unless it is free of
contamination from hazardous wastes. Two types of
structures are needed: (1) diversion structures, which
either intercept clean run on and divert it around the
treatment
5-10
TM 5-814-7
area or prevent contaminated water from leaving the unit
by directing it to a retention basin; and (2) run-off
retention and sedimentation control basins (figure 5-4).
In addition, tanks, surface impoundments, or waste piles
may be needed for waste storage during inclement
weather. For example, land treatment facilities in cold
regions may require storage facilities, particularly if the
application season is limited to spring, summer, and fall.
A water balance may be performed to aid in design of
such facilities. Subsurface drainage systems and
leachate control and treatment systems may also be
required at some hazardous waste land treatment
facilities.
e. Closure. Closure of a land treatment unit may
be accomplished by either establishing a permanent
vegetative cover capable of maintaining growth without
extensive maintenance, removing and landfilling the
zone of incorporation, or capping the land treatment area
to control wind and water erosion. General closure
practices called for include minimizing run-off from the
treatment zone, continuing ground-water monitoring, and
continuing restrictions on food-chain crops. In addition,
the unsaturated zone should be monitored as part of the
closure procedures; however soil-pore liquid monitoring
may be suspended 90 days after the last application of
waste at the unit. Each of these practices is described in
chapter 12 of EPA SW-874.
f. Equipment needs. Equipment required for a
land treatment operation ranges from the simple to the
sophisticated, depending on the application technique
employed. However, all are conventional and readily
available. Any equipment used for operations must be
decontaminated before taking from the treatment unit
(1) For surface irrigation by furrow or flood
techniques, piping and a pump are needed to transmit
the waste to the point of discharge. Alternatively, a truck
or trailer-mounted tank may be used to apply wastes by
gravity flow or through a sprayer or manifold. Equipment
needs for sprinkler systems will vary, depending on
system type, but will generally require properly sized
piping, pump, nozzles.
(2) A vacuum truck with flotation tires and rear
sprayer or manifold may be used for surface spreading
of sludge. If the sludge is too thick to be pumped, a
conventional truck with moisture-proof bed may be used
to dump the waste, which is then spread with a road
grader or bulldozer. The blades of both road graders
and bulldozers should be equipped with depth control
skids and edge wings to aid in uniform application. Once
the waste has been spread on the land, there are several
types of equipment that can be used to incorporate the
waste into the soil-moldboard plow, disk, and/or rotary
tiller. Similar equipment can also be used for low-
moisture solids. A spreader can also be used to apply
solids which tend to be sticky or chunky.
 TM 5-814-7

Figure 5-4. Land treatment operations plan.

5-11

(3) Basic equipment for subsurface injection of
wastes consists of a truck or tractor with two or more
chisels attached. Adjustable sweeps are mounted near
the bottom of the chisels to open a wide but shallow
underground cavity. Waste is injected into the cavity
through a tube attached to the back of the chisel. For
repeated application of wastes over long time periods,
underground supply pipes may be installed, with flexible
tubing used to connect the supply pipe to truck or tractor-
mounted injectors.
5-5. Deep Well Injection
a. Suitable Wastes. Injection wells are used to
dispose of large quantities of liquid hazardous wastes
into the subsurface. Injection well disposal is regulated
by the EPA Underground Injection Control Program
(UICX40 CFR 146) and authorized by subpart C of the
Safe Drinking Water Act. Currently injection wells may
accept large quantities of chemical, waste-water brines
or mining wastes in deep, isolated porous geological
formations. Large volumes of waste, on the order of
hundreds of thousands or millions of gallons, may be
disposed by injection. Approximately 160 injection wells
are now operating, with most used by the chemical and
petrochemical industry.
(1) A wide variety of wastes can be disposed by
injection. These wastes include, but are not limited to:
• Dilute or concentrated acid or alkaline
solutions
• Solutions containing metals
• Inorganic solutions
• Hydrocarbons and chlorinated hydrocarbons
• Solvents
• Organic solutions with a high biochemical
oxygen demand
(2) The UIC criteria and standards cover
construction, operating, plugging and closure of deep
wells, and monitoring and reporting requirements. The
UIC classification of injection wells is as follows:
Class I - Injects hazardous wastes as defined
in 40 CFR 146, subpart A
Class II - Injects petroleum fluids
byproducts
Class III - Injects fluid for mineral extraction
Class IV - Injects fluids into or above an
underground drinking water source
Class V - Injects fluids not covered in
Classes I-IV
b. Disposal constraints. The injection well disposal
option is limited by
• regulations and policy
• waste types
• selective geological environment
• construction and operation expense
TM 5-814-7
(1) Most importantly, injection wells are
considered by EPA policy to be a 'qast resort" means of
disposal. It must be demonstrated that the injected fluids
will not contaminate ground-water or damage the
environment, and injection is used after all other means
of disposal are found unsatisfactory.
(2) In addition, types of wastes to be disposed
of may limit disposal options: only liquid wastes may be
disposed of in injection wells. Injected wastes are strictly
covered in UIC; justification for injection must be
presented and pretreatment of waste streams may be
required prior to injection.
(3) To ensure their separation from drinking
water aquifers, injection wells are limited to sites that are
in geologically isolated environments. Extensive
geologic research and field work must be done to site
wells and to determine injection zone isolation. Injection
horizons must be tested for waste compatibility to ensure
that the wastes do not contain materials that are
chemically reactive with site soils or rock. Waste
constituents that could pose problems include corrosive
mineral salts, acids (capable of dissolving carbonate
rock), and precipitated salts. In addition, the proposed
injection area should be tested for overall permeability to
define the injection zone. Typical siting investigations
and well developments and construction information is
found in comprehensive technical documents (EPA
600/2-77-240).
(4) Another disposal limitation is the existence
of unexpected subsurface problems such as pressure
around the formation, induced earthquake activity and
dissolution of injection zone host rock. The precautions
concerning location of landfills in karst terrain or seismic
zones 3 and 4 also pertain to injection wells (see para 5-
2b(2)). Pressure mound formation may result in a
"mound" of injected fluid that forms near the injection
well hose and interferes with rates of fluid injection and
ground-water flow. Low magnitude earthquake swarms
may be caused by injecting fluids into deep fault zones;
such a case was documented at Rocky Mountain
Arsenal in the 1960's. Finally, host rock may dissolve if it
or is incompatible with the injected waste, thereby creating
voids at depth and possible subsidence effects.
(5) Worst of the subsurface problems is aquifer
contamination as a result of injection. Contamination
could occur as a result of incompletely plugged
abandoned injection wells, displacement of saline water
into potable water, or well bore failure.
(6) Finally, the substantial costs of
implementing injection well disposal systems are a
significant limiting factor; these systems require much
professional expertise in site evaluation, testing,
construction and waste stream analysis. Furthermore,
the system requires stringent monitoring and
maintenance to ensure good operation. Costs for typical
Class I-EI type
5-12

wells may easily range into the hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
c. Procedures. Wastes are disposed in injection
wells by injecting waste under pressure to porous
injection zones. Following their collection, wastes may
be pretreated and then sent into the pressurized system.
Injection may proceed round the clock, so that large
volumes may be disposed of continuously. The injection
well system consists of a cased and sealed borehole
containing the injection tube; wastes are forced through
the tube to the injection zone. Use of a tube for injection
helps reduce the possibility of leaks; a tube may be
replaced easily, saving wear on borehole casings (see
figure 5-5). All phases of injection are monitored for
leakage detection and proper operation. Disposal
operations are reported quarterly, so corrective action or
adjustments to the system may be made if necessary.
d. Design elements. UIC regulations require all
aspects of injection well systems to be reported and
classified, including construction requirements that
pertain to casing type and cement type, well dimensions,
waste characteristics, corrosiveness and leak prevention.
The regulations also call for tests and logs, including
electric logs on the injection zone formation and integrity
of completed wells. In addition, midcourse evaluation of
well performance is required for the first two years of
operation. In general, all types of materials and
procedures must be specifically described or referenced.
As an example, steel and concrete corrosion resistance
to the waste stream must be demonstrated.
e. Equipment needs. Injection well siting and
construction requires specialized equipment, material
and professional expertise. Well siting requires an
exhaustive review of geology and in-situ formation
testing. Injection wells are commonly 1,000 to 5,000 feet
deep; therefore, drilling equipment is needed that is
capable of reaching that depth. Once the geologic
environment has been defined, waste compatibility
studies and construction material selection may
commence.
(1) Since hazardous and corrosive material will
be injected, construction materials must be selected that
can handle the waste stream. Concrete mixes and steel
casing are chosen for their ability to ensure delivery of
waste to the injection zone. Pumps and injection casing
are also chosen to handle wastes and maintain injection
pressure. The object of design and material selection is
to choose non-reactive, non-corrosive material to deliver
and isolate wastes in the injection zone only.
(2) Finally, waste pretreatment may be
necessary prior to injection. One or more types of
wastes may be injected, so the size and function of the
facility may vary. Such a surface facility would include
impound
5-13
TM 5-814-7
ments, filters, clarifiers, sludge collection, pH control and
several injection pumps.
5-6. Waste Piles
a. Suitable Wastes. Waste pile storage and
treatment is suitable for semi-solid and solid hazardous
wastes such as mine tailings. Waste piles may not be
used to intentionally dispose of wastes; if disposal is
required, the owner/operator must obtain a landfill permit
and manage the pile as a landfill. The regulatory
standards for management of waste piles requires that
the owner or operator take precautions in treating or
storing ignitable, reactive or incompatible waste so that it
does not ignite or explode, emit toxic gases, damage the
contaminant structure or through other like means
threaten human health or the environment. Section
264.256 prohibits the placement of ignitable or reactive
wastes in a waste pile, unless the waste is made non-
ignitable or non-reactive. Reactive wastes may be
especially difficult to manage since waste piles are
directly exposed to the environment. Incompatible
wastes may not be placed on the same waste pile
(section 264.257) to ensure prevention of fires,
explosions, gaseous emissions, leaching, or other
discharge which could result from the contact or mixing
of incompatible wastes or materials.
b. Disposal constraints. Waste piles are not an
ultimate disposal method; they are intended only for
storage or treatment of certain solid hazardous wastes.
Given this restriction, the siting criteria for this disposal
method are somewhat less stringent that those for
landfills or surface impoundments. In general, however,
it is preferable that waste piles be located in a
hydrogeologic setting that offers sufficient vertical
separation of wastes from the uppermost groundwater,
and low permeability soils providing the hydraulic
separation. The precautions concerning location of
landfills in karst terrain or seismic zones 3 and 4 also
pertain to waste piles (see para 5-2b(2)).
c. Procedures. As noted above, a waste pile is any
non-containerized accumulation of solid hazardous
waste collected for treatment or storage; it is not used to
intentionally dispose of wastes. Procedures for
depositing wastes in such a unit are therefore quite
simple: wastes are trucked to the waste pile location,
unloaded, and then placed on the pile.
d. Design elements. Basic design requirements for
waste piles include:
• Liners with a leak detection system and
monitoring wells
• Leachate collection and removal
• Run-on and run-off control
• Wind dispersal control
(1) Liners selected for a waste pile must be adequate to
contain wastes until closure. Considerable
 TM 5-814-7

Reproduced from An Introduction to the Technology of Subsurface Wastewater lnjection, EPA 600/2-77-240, 197 7

Figure 5-5. Deep injection well.

5-14

flexibility is permitted in choice of liners, which may, for
short-term storage of wastes, be constructed of clay,
synthetic materials or admixes. If the waste pile will not
be closed for 10 years or more (and cannot be
periodically cleaned and inspected for leakage), a
double-lined system with leak detection and monitoring
wells is required. Details on liner requirements are
presented in paragraph 6-3.
(2) A leachate collection and removal system is
also required to collect any leachate that may be
produced in a waste pile by infiltration of moisture,
decomposition or reaction. Leachate systems are
discussed in paragraph 6-4. Run-on and run-off control
facilities, which are required for waste piles, are
addressed in paragraph 6-5.
(3) If the waste pile contains particulate matter,
wind dispersal controls are mandated by the regulations.
Mechanisms for preventing dispersal of particulate are
discussed under special design elements in paragraph 6-
9.
e. Closure. Since waste piles cannot be used
for permanent disposal of wastes, and can be permitted
only for storage, closure requirements are less stringent
than for disposal facilities such as landfills. The principal
closure requirement for a waste pile which has achieved
adequate waste containment during its active life is
removal or decontamination of all
5-15
TM 5-814-7
waste and waste residue and all system components
(e.g., liners), subsoil, structures and equipment which
have been contaminated by contact with the waste.
However, if contamination of the subsoil is so extensive
as to preclude complete removal or decontamination, the
closure and post-closure requirements applying to
landfills must be observed. Ensuring adequate
containment of waste should therefore be an important
consideration in initial design of a waste pile.
f. Equipment needs. The type of equipment
employed in operation of a waste pile depends to a large
extent on the waste characteristics and the size of the
pile. With the exception of compactors, many of the
vehicles used in landfill operations can also be employed
for waste piles. Bulldozers and front end loaders are
widely used to place wastes; scrapers can also be used
on some applications, particularly where the size of the
pile and the coarseness of the waste permit the scraper
to deposit wastes over the top of the pile. Large-scale
operations may also be able to use conveyor belts or
drag lines to deposit the wastes over the pile. Any
equipment used to unload and place wastes must be
decontaminated before being taken out of the disposal
operation area.

CHAPTER 6
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY DESIGN ELEMENTS
6-1. Introduction
a. Federal regulations on hazardous waste
land treatment, storage and disposal facilities (40 CFR
264) are expressed as performance standards;
therefore, while required design elements are stipulated,
design details are not. The EPA, however, as the
agency charged with enforcement of the regulations and
permitting of hazardous waste facilities, has provided
specifications for the required design elements in a
series of RCRA guidance documents. These
documents, referenced in appendix A, contain
recommendations for constructing the design features
that the agency considers the minimum necessary to
achieve the required performance standards. This
chapter focuses on the key elements required by the
regulations, including flood control systems (para 6-2),
liner systems (para 6-3), leak detection and leachate
collection and removal systems (para 6-4), surface water
control systems (para 6-5), gas control systems (para 6-
6), final cover (para 6-7), and special design features
(i.e., dikes and overtopping controls and wind dispersal
methods) (para 6-8). EPA specifications are generally
adhered to; however, variations in design are suggested
if the proposed alternative meets the performance
standards set in paragraph 264, Note, however, that in
cases where DA criteria are more stringent than state or
federal regulations, Army standards are preeminent.
Table 5-1 in chapter 5 summarizes the design elements
required for each type of DA hazardous waste facility.
b. The limited scope of this design manual
prevents detailed treatment of all elements of design.
Reference to pertinent resource documents, noted in the
text, will be necessary to provide the needed design
detail.
c. Facility operations, which are treated
generally in chapters 5 and 7, are discussed in this
chapter only if the operational element is integrally
connected with facility design and a necessary
component of achieving performance standards.
6-2. Flood control systems
a. To minimize the adverse impact that
washout of hazardous wastes could have on the
environment, land disposal facilities must be located and
designed to prevent flooding by a 100-year return
frequency flood (or any greater return specified by state
regulations).
(1) RCRA regulations (40 CFR 264.18(b))
require that washout be prevented, unless the owner or
operator demonstrates that wastes can be removed
before flooding, and that no adverse effect would result if
washout were to occur. While removal of wastes is an
6-1
TM 5-814-7
acceptable option, it should be avoided in favor of
installing flood control features. At existing sites, an
evaluation should be made of potential flood levels and
the ability of design features to prevent flooding. If such
features are not feasible, procedures should be
developed for removal of wastes before flooding or for
preventing the adverse effects of washout.
(2) Evaluation and assessment of the 100-year
flood level for land disposal facilities should be based on
analyses performed by the local Corps of Engineers
District Office or other federal or local flood agencies,
and/or on data collected at any upstream control
facilities. Should such information be lacking, the need
for determining the probable flood level by other means
should be assessed.
(3) Earthen embankments (levees) constructed
of compacted impervious soil, are commonly used to
form barriers to flood waters and protect the facilities
behind them. Levees may be constructed along the
perimeter of disposal sites or at the base of fill along
slope faces subject to inundation. To provide sufficient
flood protection, levee elevations should be at least 2
feet above the 100-year flood level.
(4) Figure 6-1 presents design features of a
typical levee at the perimeter of a new or uncompleted
landfill. If lack of soil or available space limit levee
construction, landfill slopes subject to flooding can be
protected by a heavy clay structure such as that also
shown in figure 6-1.
b. Additional features which may be needed
for flood control structures include subsurface cutoff
trenches and interior drainage structures to control
seepage or run off. Furthermore, although levees are
designed for long-term flood protection, proper
functioning can only be ensured by periodic inspection
and maintenance to guard against bank caving or
sloughing, erosion and settlement of the foundation.
6-3. Liner systems
a. Introduction. Liner systems are required for
all hazardous waste landfills, surface impoundments and
waste piles. Liners required as part of the final cover at
facility closure are discussed in paragraph 6-8. This
section refers to required base liner systems. Double
liners with a leak detection system are required at all DA
installations unless waivers are obtained from USACE
(DAEN-ECE-G), Washington, DC 20314.
(1) Specific federal regulations concerning
base liner systems are summarized in table 6-1. The
liner system must function for the active life of the waste
unit through scheduled closure and be capable not only
 TM 5-814-7

Figure 6-1. Flood control structures.

of preventing migration of liquids from the facility, but for leachate collection and leak detection systems are
also allowing no infiltration of liquids into the liner itself. discussed in paragraph 6-4.
The latter requirement in effect mandates use of a (3) The EPA has developed design
synthetic material as a primary liner at most hazardous recommendations for various elements of the required
waste units. liner system. Although the EPA currently considers its
(2) Leachate collection and removal systems, recommendations the minimum acceptable to ensure
capable of maintaining a leachate head no greater than 1 achievement of the performance goals set forth in the
foot, must be installed in a drainage layer above the regulations, variations in system design are permitted
liners in all landfills and waste piles; leak detection upon successful demonstration of comparable
systems are also required. Specific design provisions performance.
b. Elements of the liner system. Liner
systems for

6-2
 TM 5-814-7

Table 6-1. Requirements for Liner Systems

Section of 40 CFR 264 Describing Requirements

K L M N
Design Requirements Surface Waste Pile Land Treatment Landfill
Impoundments
Except for an existing portion, a unit must have a 264.221(a) 264.251(a)(1) NA 264.301(a)(1)’
liner that is designed, constructed, and installed
to prevent any migration of wastes out of the unit
to the adjacent subsurface soil or ground water or
surface water at any time during the active life
(including the closure period).
Constructed of materials that have appropriate 264.221(a) 264.251(a)(1) NA 264.301(a)(1)
chemical properties and sufficient strength and
thickness to prevent failure due to pressure
gradients (including static head and external
hydrogeologic forces), physical contact with the
waste or leachate to which they are exposed,
climatic conditions, the stress of installation, and
the stress of daily operation. Installed to cover all
surrounding earth likely to be in contact with the
waste or leachate.
Placed upon a foundation or base capable of 264.221(a) 264.251(a)(1) NA 264.301(a)(1)
providing support to the liner and resistance to
pressure gradients above and below the liner to
prevent failure of the liner due to settlement,
compression, or uplift.
264.221(a) 264.251(a)(1) NA 264.301(a)(1)
Liner systems must be monitored and inspected 264.226(a) 264.254(a) NA 264.303(a)
during construction and installation, (except in the
case of existing portions of units exempted from
liners, as noted above).
Cover systems (e.g., membranes, sheets, or 264.226(a) 264.254(a) NA 264.303(a)
coatings) must be inspected for uniformity,
damage, and imperfections (e.g., holes, cracks,
thin spots, or foreign materials) Immediately after
construction or installation
Soil-based and admixed liners and covers must 264.226(a) 264.254(a) NA 264.303(a)
be inspected for imperfections including lenses,
cracks, channels, root holes, or other structural
non-infirmities that may cause an increase in the
permeability of the liner or cover
Adapted from 40 CFR 264
• For landfills, (and surface impoundments and waste piles operated for more than 30 years), regulations include an additional
requirement that wastes not migrate into the liner during the active life of the site.

all facilities must be (1) constructed in unsaturated soil above
the seasonal high water table, (2) placed on a foundation
which will provide adequate support to the liner, and (3)
installed to cover all earth likely to come into contact with
waste or leachate. Required elements of the liner system
depend on the type of facility and the anticipated period of time
from first placement of waste to site closure.
(1) Surface impoundment liner systems depend on
whether the impoundment is permitted for storage (requiring
removal of all wastes, waste residues and liners at closure) or
for disposal (requiring removal of free liquids, stabilization of
wastes and capping at closure). The following elements are
required for DA impoundments:
• Primary synthetic liner
• Secondary (clay soil or synthetic) liner
• Leak detection system
• Monitoring wells
(2) Waste piles, which can be permitted only as
storage facilities, require base liner systems consisting
of a single liner of soil (clay), synthetic material, or ad- mixed
material, and a leachate collection and removal system. If
closure is not scheduled for 10 years or more, a synthetic liner
is to be used, and the base liner system should consist of-
• Leachate collection and removal system above
primary liner
• Primary liner of synthetic material
• Secondary liner of clay soil or synthetic material
• Leak detection system between liners
(a) Alternatively, admixed materials such as
concrete and asphalt may be used for long-term storage if
physical and chemical analyses of their characteristics indicate
they will not deteriorate during the life of the waste pile.
Admixed liners are preferred for waste piles where repeated
removal and replacement of wastes may occur, since synthetic
membrane liners could be easily damaged by the required
waste-handling equipment, and exposed areas of clay liners
could dry out and crack. Reinforced concrete with appro-

6-3

priate coatings would be a suitable liner in such cases.
(b) Waste piles storing only dry wastes which
will not generate leachate through decomposition or
reaction are exempt from the provisions of this technical
manual, provided they are located inside or under
structures protected from infiltration of moisture.
(3) Landfill base liner systems should consist,
at a minimum, of-
• Leachate collection and removal
system
• Primary liner of synthetic material
• Secondary liner of clay soil or synthetic
material
• Leak detection system between liners
• Monitoring wells
(4) The types of liner systems recommended
for landfills, surface impoundments and waste piles are
depicted in figures 6-2 and 6-3. Specific design
elements necessary to ensure the performance of DA
hazardous waste facilities include the following:
(a) Synthetic liners should be a minimum 30 mil
in thickness when not reinforced, but a minimum 36 mil if
reinforced. They must be carefully selected for
compatibility with the waste and leachate to be
contained.
(b) Soil liners for DA facilities should be
constructed of a minimum 3-foot compacted layer of soil
materials with a permeability of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec or less
by EPA test methods.
(c) Soil liners should be tested for compatibility
with the hazardous waste designated for disposal. A list
of compatible wastes should be made available to the
facility operator and made part of the permanent record.
This list should also be included in facility operation
manuals and related documents.
(d) Drainage layers constructed above the
liners as part of leachate control or leak detection should
be at least 12 inches thick, have a minimum hydraulic
conductivity of 1 x 10-3 cm/sec, and be sloped at >, 2
percent. Sands should be classified as either SW or SP
by the USCS, with less than 5 percent passing the No.
100 sieve. In addition, sands intended to act as filters
must meet filter graduation requirements, such as those
shown in chapter 5 of TM 5-820-2.
c. Liner system exemptions. Retrofitting of
liners is not required in already existing portions of
hazardous waste units, but liners are normally required
for all new portions of existing facilities, unless the
owner/operator demonstrates to the EPA and USACE
(DAEN-ECE-G), Washington, DC 20314, that no
hazardous constituents will migrate from the facility to
ground or surface waters. Migration of liquids into or out
of the space between the liners is prevented by lapping
and sealing the liner edges at the surface.
d. Liner types. A variety of liner materials are
available for control of hazardous wastes. Table 6-2
presents their principal characteristics, advantages and
6-4
TM 5-814-7
disadvantages. While soil liners are suitable for use as
secondary liners and, in certain applications, as the only
liner, synthetic membrane liners are considered by the
EPA to be the primary mechanism for long term
containment of waste and leachate from hazardous
waste land treatment and disposal facilities. However, to
ensure the continued effectiveness of the liners, whether
soil or synthetic material, they must be compatible with
the waste and leachate they are to contain and be
properly installed.
e. Liner characteristics. The major categories
of liners are soil liners and synthetic liners; their
characteristics are summarized in table 6-2 and
described in greater detail below.
(1) Soil liners may be constructed of native clay
materials exhibiting a remolded permeability of 1 x 10-7
cm/sec or less and obtained on site, from selected
borrow areas, or from off-site sources. The soil liner
should generally fall into the CL/CH Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) with not less than 50
percent by weight passing a No. 200 sieve (US
Standard), a liquid limit between 35 and 60, and a
plasticity index above the "A" Line in the plasticity chart
of the USCS. If available soils do not have the required
low permeability, they can be blended with clay,
bentonite or other additives.
(a) Soil liners have been the liner of choice at
many solid waste disposal facilities (when available on
site) because of their natural attenuation of many
chemical substances, resistance to leachate, high
caution exchange capacity, and relatively low cost. In all
cases, on-site clays must be prepared for use as liners in
accordance with paragraph 6-3g(1). However, because
they do permit migration of leachate into the liner, the
EPA considers soil liners unacceptable as the primary
line of defense in preventing hazardous waste migration.
Except for surface impoundments permitted for storage
only and for waste piles, synthetic liners are specified for
the primary liner. Soil liners are acceptable as
secondary liners.
(2) Synthetic liners currently in use at
hazardous waste land facilities include the following
types:
• Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
• Chlorinated polyethylene (CPE)
• High-density polyethylene (HDPE)
• Chlorosulfonated polyethylene, Hypalon (CSPE)
• Butyl rubber
• Epichlorohydrin rubber (ECO)
• Ethylene propylene terpolymer (EPT)
• Ethylene propylene rubber
• Neoprene (chloroprene rubber)
• Thermoplastic elastomers
(a) Flexible membrane linings, commonly
called "plastics", include those with either polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) or polyethylene (PE) bases. To produce
the de-
 TM 5-814-7

Figure 6-2. Base liner details for landfills and surface impoundments.

6-5
 TM 5-814-7

Figure 6-3. Base liner details for waste piles.

6-6
 TM 5-814-7

Table 6-2. Summary of Liner Types

Range of
Liner material Characteristics costs a Advantages Disadvantages
Soils:
Compacted clay Compacted mixture of onsite L High cation exchange capacity; re- Organic or inorganic acids or
soils soils to a permeability of 10 -7 sistant to many types of bases may solubilize portions
cm/sec leachate of clay structure
Soil-bentonite Compacted mixture of onsite L High cation exchange capacity; Organic or inorganic acids or
soil, water and bentonite resistant to many types of bases may solubilize portions
leachate of clay structure
Admixes:
Asphalt-concrete Mixtures of asphalt cement and M Resistant to water and effects of Not resistant to organic solvents;
high quality mineral aggregate weather extremes; stable on partially or wholly soluble in
side slopes; resistant to acids, hydrocarbons; does not have
bases, and inorganic salts good resistance to inorganic
chemicals; high gas perme-
ability
Asphalt- Core layer of blown asphalt M Flexible enough to conform to ir- Ages rapidly in hot climates; not
membrane blended with mineral fillers regularities in subgrade; resist- resistant to organic solvents,
and reinforcing fibers ant to acids, bases, and inor- particularly hydrocarbons
Soil asphalt Compacted mixture of asphalt, L Resistant to acids, bases, and Not resistant to organic solvents,
water, and selected in-place salts particularly hydrocarbons
soils
Soil cement Compacted mixture of Portland L Good weathering in wet-dry/ Degraded by highly acidic envi-
cement, water, and selected in- freeze-thaw cycles; can re- ronments
place soils sist moderate amount of alkali,
rganics and inorganic salts
Polymeric membranes:
Butyl rubber Copolymer of isobutylene with M Low gas and water vapor perme- Highly swollen by hydrocarbon
small amounts of isoprene ability; thermal stability; only solvents and petroleum oils;
slightly affected by oxygen- difficult to seam and repair
ated solvents and other polar
liquids
Chlorinated Produced by chemical reaction M Good tensile strength and Will swell in presence of aro-
polyethylene between chlorine and high den- elongation strength; resistant matic hydrocarbons and oils
sity polyethylene to many inorganics
Chlorosulfonate Family of polmers prepared by H Good resistance to ozone, heat, Tends to harden on aging; low
polyethylene reacting polyethylene with acids, and alkalis tensile strength; tendency to
chlorine and sulfur dioxide shrink from exposure to sun-
light; poor resistance to oil
Elasticized Blend of rubbery and crystalline L Low density; highly resistant to Difficulties with low temper-
polyolefins polyolefins weathering, alkalis, and acids atures and oils
Epichlorohydrin Saturated high molecular weight, M Good tensile and test strength; None reported
rubbers aliphatic polethers with chloro- thermal stability; low rate of
methyl side chains gas and vapor permeability; re
sistant to ozone and weather-
ing; resistant to hydrocarbons,
solvents, fuels, and oils
Ethylene Family of terpolymers of M Resistant to dilute concentra- Not recommended for petroleum
propylene ethylene, propylene, and non tions of acids, alkalis, silicates, solvents or halogenated sol-
rubber conjugated hydrocarbon phosphates and brine; tolerates vents
extreme temperatures; flexible
at low temperatures; excellent
resistance to weather and ul-
traviolet exposure
Neoprene Synthetic rubber based on chlor- H Resistant to oils, weathering, None reported
oprene ozone and ultraviolet radi-
ation; resistant to puncture,
abrasion, and mechanical dam-
age
Polyethylene Thermoplastic polymer based on L Superior resistance to oils, sol- Not recommended for exposure
ethylene vents, and permeation by wa- to weathering and ultraviolet
ter vapor and gases light conditions

See footnote at end of table.

6-7

Table 6-2-Summary of Liner Types-Continued
Liner material Characteristics
Polyvinyl chloride Produced in roll form in various widths
and thickness; polymerization of
vinyl chloridemonomer
Thermoplastic Relatively new class of polymeric
elastomers materials ranging from highly polar
to nonpolar
Portland cement Hydraulic cement of silica, lime, and
alumina
a L-$1 to $4 installed costs per sq yd in 1981 dollars; M-$4 to $8 per sq. yd.; H-$8 to $12 per sq. yd.
Adapted from Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control, Office of Technology
Assessment, Congress of the U.S1983.
sired membrane, both material resins are mixed with
monomers under controlled temperature and pressure
conditions in a polymerizer. Many manufacturing
companies utilize these basic resins in combination with
their own compounding to produce specialty
membranes. A list of the producers and suppliers of raw
material polymer can be found in the EPA SW-870.
(b) Specifications for individual sheet materials
can be obtained from the producer. Suppliers are also
able to provide specifications for the base polymers and
their individual synthetic membrane sheet.
(c) To increase tensile strength, to provide
resistance to shrinkage, punctures and tears and to
permit easier handling and seaming, a fabric
reinforcement (scrim) may be laminated between two
synthetic membrane sheets. When installing reinforced
liners, care must be taken to ensure that all exposed
edges are sealed. Failure to do so could result in the
scrim acting like a wick and drawing in moisture,
resulting in eventual liner breakdown.
f. Compatibility and physical testing. Since the
prime purpose of a liner is to prevent liquids from leaving
a hazardous waste facility, the physical integrity and
chemical compatibility of the liner with the waste
constituents must be ensured.
(1) Soil liners. Permeability tests, in which soil liners
are brought into contact first with water, then with
leachate or chemical waste, are the most important
indicators of the compatibility of soil liner materials with
the waste they are to contain. Permeability is a function
of many variables, including pore size, pore space
tortuosity, particle shape and size, and mineralogy of the
soil material, the permeant characteristics, and
temperature. The permeability of a soil liner can be
affected by waste types that are incompatible with the
liner material. For example, clay soils may exhibit high
permeability when exposed to concentrated organics,
especially organics of high and low pH.
(a) To test the permeability of soil materials,
samples which have been tested for their physical,
TM 5-814-7
Range of
costs a Advantages Disadvantages
L Good resistance to inorganic; Attacked by many organics,
good tensile, elongation, including hydrocarbons,
puncture, and abrasion solvents - and oils; not
resistant properties; wide recommended for exposure
ranges of physical to weathering and ultraviolet
properties light conditions -
M Excellent oil, fuel, and water None reported
resistance with high tensile
strength and excellent
resistance to weathering
and ozone
H Excellent base for waste Cracking
handling equipment
chemical and mineralogical properties may be remolded
to specified moisture content and maximum dry density
specified by ASTM D1557 to determine the permeability
of test specimens. Test methods acceptable to EPA are
contained in appendix A of the draft RCRA guidance
documents for waste piles and surface impoundments.
Both water and representative chemical wastes would be
used for the permeant.
(b) Figure 6-4 shows the moisture content
versus dry density curve for a clay liner, as well as the
relationship between moisture content, relative
compaction and permeability for a clay liner subjected to
water and aqueous hazardous waste. All clay liners
must have a permeability of 10-7 cm/sec or less.
(2) Synthetic Liners. Proof of the chemical
resistance of the selected synthetic membrane liner is
required by RCRA regulations. In recent years, all
manufacturers of synthetic liners, as well as most
suppliers, have operated testing facilities and developed
chemical resistance tables and guides for their
respective products. Reference to chemical resistance
guideline sheets or compatibility charts that classify a
generic flexible membrane liner will not, however,
provide sufficient data on which to base a final liner
selection, since the manufacturer’s compounding can
produce significant differences in liner properties and
performance in the field. Furthermore, since the
chemical characteristics of both liners and wastes are
extremely variable, it is difficult to generalize concerning
incompatibility. Data currently available, however,
suggest that the following combinations of wastes and
liner materials can be incompatible:
* Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tends to be dissolved
by chlorinated solvents.
* Chlorosulfonated polyethylene can be dis-
solved by aromatic hydrocarbons.
* Asphaltic materials may dissolve in oily
wastes.
* Concrete- and lime-based materials are dis-
solved by acids.
6-8

(a) A test method accepted by the EPA for
evaluating waste/liner compatibility involves exposing a
liner sample to the waste or leachate encountered at the
facility. After exposure, the liner sample is tested for
strength (tensile, tear, and puncture) and weight loss.
Any significant deterioration in the measured properties
is considered evidence of incompatibility, unless it can be
demonstrated that the deterioration exhibited will not
impair the integrity of the liner over the life of the facility.
(b) Standard specifications for flexible
membrane liners are currently being developed by the
National Sanitation Foundation (NSF). Upon their final
adoption, these standards will be used by the EPA to
provide minimum recommendations on physical
properties, construction practices and seaming. In the
interim, the design engineer may review suggested
standards in appendix IX of EPA SW-870.
g. Liner installation. Whether the liner to be
installed is soil or synthetic material, a thorough analysis
of the proposed liner foundation is necessary to ensure
adequate support of the liner and resistance to pressure
gradients above or below the liner. An unsuitable
foundation could result in settlement, compression, or
uplift of the liner which could lead to liner damage. An
analysis of foundation suitability may include evaluation
of geologic, hydrologic, geotechnical and other pertinent
data. Such data are particularly important in the design
of surface impoundments. Specific requirements for
installation of soil liners and flexible membranes are
discussed below.
(1) Proper installation of a soil liner is needed
to maintain the specified permeability of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec
or less. Prior to placement of the clay liner, the subbase
must be properly prepared to ensure structural integrity
and proper bonding with the clay liner. To ensure
adequate compaction, soil materials should be spread in
loose lifts no more than 6 inches thick, be wetted or dried
to the specified moisture content of optimum or above,
and be compacted with a sheepsfoot-type roller to the
specified relative compaction. Specified values must be
based upon the tested relationships between moisture
content, relative compaction and permeability. See
figure 6-4.
(a) Successive lifts should be placed and
compacted until a liner thickness of 3 feet is achieved.
The finished surface of the soil liner should then be rolled
or bladed smooth. Installation of a clay liner should not
be attempted under adverse weather conditions, such as
heavy precipitation or freezing temperatures.
(b) Following installation, the liner should be
inspected for imperfections, such as lenses, cracks, or
other structural defects which could cause an increase in
liner permeability. Until placement of waste or, in the
case of a double-lined facility, the overlying synthetic
liner, care must be taken to ensure that the liner
6-9
TM 5-814-7
does not dry out. Controlled moisture application or
coating the liner with an asphaltic emulsion may be
required in some instances to prevent drying and
cracking. Protection from freezing is also an important
consideration in colder climates.
(2) Considerations in installation of a synthetic
membrane liner include providing protective soil layers
above and below the liner and proper seaming of the
liner. Failure to consider these important factors could
result in liner failure and undermine the goal of complete
waste containment. To ensure proper membrane liner
placement, seaming, and placement of protective soil
cover, the best installation procedures and practices
should be developed for the type of membrane
proposed. Guidance in installing synthetic liners should
be obtained from experienced manufacturers of the
membrane, fabricators who have assisted in preparing
panel installation plans and have fabricated large panels
of the materials, and experienced contractors. Project
specifications for the installation of the liner should state
the experience required for the manufacturer, the
fabricator and the installing contractor for the project.
(a) Protection of the liner involves proper
preparation of the subgrade and placement of protective
soil layers. Procedures to be used in preparation of the
surface include compaction, scraping and rolling to
provide a smooth surface for the liner. A minimum 6inch
layer of material not coarser than sand (classified by
USCS as SP or SW, with less than 5 percent passing the
No. 100 sieve) is recommended by the EPA as a
protection against puncture, equipment damage, and
exposure to the elements; sands which act as filters
must meet filter graduation requirements, such as those
shown in chapter 5 of TM 5-820-2. Note, however, that
the EPA draft guidance document for liners permits
substitution of drainage layers, on-site soils or soil liners
for the 6-inch sand layer.
(b) In surface impoundments, the liquid
material overlying the liner is considered sufficient
protection unless dredging or operation of other
equipment could damage the liner. If so, an 18-inch
layer of soil is recommended. Sterilization of any
underlying organic materials may be necessary,
particularly in the case of surface impoundments, to
prevent formation of gases and subsequent uplift of the
liner. In cold climates, the use of a protective soil cover
may be necessary to minimize the possibility of cracking
caused by freezing.
(c) Heavy geotextile fabrics (>a 400 g/m2) are
increasingly being used in combination with flexible
membrane liners in hazardous waste units to protect the
membranes from puncture and abrasion. In surface
impoundments, geotextiles are also used for gas relief
beneath membranes (Collins and Newkirk, 1982). In
addition, geotextiles may also serve as a clean base for
seaming membrane panels. If geotex-
 TM 5-814-7

Figure 6-4. Typical clay liner compatibility evaluation.

6-10
 TM 5-814-7

tiles are used to protect synthetic membranes, it is
important that they, like the synthetic membranes, be
tested for compatibility with hazardous waste. Only very
limited compatibility testing data are currently available
on geotextile fabrics; however, many such fabrics are
made of polypropylene or polyester materials and may
have compatibility characteristics similar to those
exhibited by liners of the same materials.
(d) Fabricated liner panels must be constructed
so as to minimize the number of field seams and to
enable placement of field seams at locations where least
severe field conditions occur (e.g., at ridge areas for leak
detection and leachate collection systems; see figure 6-
2). Project specifications should delineate liner
placement procedures for field panel, shop and field
seaming procedures, and protective cover requirements.
Additional specifications include work responsibilities and
quality assurance/certification requirements of the
engineer, contractor, manufacturer, fabricator and
installer. As part of the project details for the base liner
system, a panel installation plan must be prepared with
the grading plan.
(e) Aside from puncture and tearing of the liner,
the most common cause of liner failure is inadequate
seaming. The joining of liner panels should therefore be
conducted under controlled conditions, in strict
accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations
and with installer’s trained personnel. The installer
should pay strict attention to the overlap specified by the
manufacturer, which may range from a minimum of 2
upwards to 12 inches. In addition, field seams shall
always be lapped over the downslope liner to prevent
piping if a seam fails. Each type of membrane liner also
requires specific seaming provisions to achieve an
effective bond, as summarized in table 6-3. Since
adverse weather conditions (e.g., extreme heat or cold,
precipitation, and winds) can affect adequate bonding of
Table 6-3. Seaming Provisions for Synthetic Liners’
Type of Place
compound a used Solvents solvents
the liner field seams, installation should be avoided
during these periods.
(f) During placement of the liner and before
wastes are placed, tests of the seam strength and
bonding effectiveness should be conducted, using visual
inspection, air lance, ultrasonic and vacuum techniques.
In addition, random samples of seams should be cut
from the liner and subjected to on-site and laboratory
testing. A replacement patch will be required. Liner
placement, seaming and testing are covered in detail in a
number of publications, including EPA SW-870.
6-4. Leak detection and leachate collection and
removal systems
a. Introduction. The leak detection system,
located between the two liners underlying the hazardous
waste facility, enables the owner or operator to
determine whether any liquid has entered the space
between the liners. Should the presence of liquid in this
space lead to the discovery that the liner has leaked, the
owner/operator will implement procedures to ensure
protection of ground water. Leachate collection and
removal systems are required immediately above the
liners in new hazardous waste landfills and waste piles.
Such systems must be capable of maintaining a leachate
depth of 1 foot or less above the liner and of withstanding
clogging, chemical attack, and forces exerted by wastes,
equipment or soil cover. General procedures for
designing leachate collection and removal systems are
provided in SW-870, paragraph 5-6 and appendix V.
b. Components of the leak detection system.
The leak detection system can be a drain system or
instrumentation that will permit detection of any liquid
that migrates into the space between the liners.
Although
Bodied Solvent Contact Vulcanizing Heat
cements cements adhesives Tapes sealed Dielectric

Butyl rubber XL Factory ... ... ... X X ... ... ...

Field ... ... ... X X X ... ...
Chlorinated Polyethylene TP Factory X X X X ... ... X X
Field X X X X ... X X ...
Chlorosulfonated polyethylene TP Factory X X X X ... X X X
Field X X X X ... ... X ...
Elasticized polyolefin TP Factory ... ... ... X ... ... X ...
Field .. ... ... X ... ... X
Ethylene propylene rubber XL Factory ... ... ... X X ... ... ...
Field ... ... ... X X X ... ...
Low-density polyethylene TP Factory ... X ... ... X ...
Field ... ... ... X ... X X ...
Neoprene (polychloroprene) XL Factory ... ... X ... .. ... ...
Field ... ... ... X ... ... ... ...
Poly(vinyl chloride) TP Factory X X X X ... ... X X
Field X X X X ... X X ...

a XL = Crosslinked or vulcanized; TP = Thermoplastic

Adapted from Liner Materials Exposed to Municipal Solid Waste Leachate (Draft), EPA Contract No. 68-03-2134, February 1982
6-11

sophisticated instrumentation is available for detection
systems, direct collection in a porous medium, with
removal through slotted pipes, is a simple and reliable
method. Design details for such a system are similar to
those for leachate collection and removal systems.
c. Components of the leachate collection
system. Specific regulations concerning leachate
systems are summarized in table 6-4. EPA guidance
documents recommend that the leachate collection
system consist of a drainage layer at least 1-foot-thick
with a hydraulic conductivity > 1 x 10-3 cm/sec, and a
minimum slope of 2 percent. When installed over a
secondary clay liner with hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-
7 cm/sec, such a system provides the four-order-of-
magnitude difference in permeability known to
significantly increase drainage efficiency.
(1) A drainage layer of clean sand, classified by
USCS as SP or SW (with less than 5 percent passing the
No. 100 sieve), and free of rock, fractured stone, debris,
and cobbles, will also satisfy the EPA requirement for a
minimum 6inch protective layer over synthetic liners. A
sand layer or filter cloth should be provided over the
drainage layer if drainage rock is used to prevent
infiltration of fines from the waste and subsequent
clogging of the drainage layer. Sands which act as filters
must meet filter graduation require-
TM 5-814-7
ments, such as those shown in chapter 5 of TM 5-820-2.
(2) Nondegradable synthetic filter cloths and
geotextile fabrics have also been used to replace
granular materials in subdrain systems. However, the
long-term performance of such materials has not been
firmly established; clogging and filter cake formation can
reduce the perpendicular permeability of both geotextiles
and filter cloths, and overburden pressures can
significantly decrease in-plane permeability of geotextile
fabrics.
d. Leachate collection pipe. Leachate collection
pipe networks should consist of slotted or perforated
drain pipe bedded and backfilled with drain rock. The
network should include collection pipes, installed around
the base of the fill and across the base. Layouts must
include base liner slopes >, 2 percent, pipe grades
>0.005, and pipe spacing determined for the unit. All
pipes should be joined and, where appropriate, bonded.
(1) Collection pipes must be adequately sized
and spaced to minimize the leachate head on the liner
system. Layouts which incorporate 4-inch-diameter
pipes on 50to 200-foot centers are considered adequate
by the EPA.
(2) Procedures to evaluate and establish the
spacing for collection drain pipes, based upon the
anticipated maximum infiltration rate and the hydraulic

Table 6-4. Requirements for Leachate Collection and Removal Systems

Section of 40 CFR 264 Describing Requirements

K L M N
Design Requirements Surface Impoundments Waste Pile Land Treatment Landfill
A leachate collection and removal system im-
mediately above the liner that is designed,
con- structed, maintained, and operated to
collect and remove leachate from the unit
The Regional Administrator will specify
design and operating conditions in the permit
to ensure that the leachate depth over the
liner does not exceed 30 cm (one foot) The
leachate collection and removal system must
be constructed of materials that are:
Chemically resistant to the waste NA 264.251(aX2) NA 264.301(aX2)
managed in the unit and the leachate
expected to be generated; and Of
sufficient strength and thickness to pre-
vent collapse under the pressures
exerted by overlying wastes, waste cover
materials, and by any equipment used at
the unit; and Designed and operated to
function without clogging through the
scheduled closure of the unit

While in operation, leachate collection NA 264.254(bX4) NA 264.303(bX4)

systems should be inspected weekly and
after storms for the presence of leachate and
proper functioning of the systems
After closure, continue to operate the
no longer detected Adapted from 40 CFR 264 NA NA NA 264.310(bX3)

6-12
 TM 5-814-7

Figure 6-5. Typical leak detection systems and leachate collection drains
6-13

conductivity of the drainage layer material available, are
presented in EPA SW-873, EPA SW-870 and EPA
625/1-81-013.
e. Leak detection and leachate collection drains.
As shown in figure 6-5, trench installations can be used
for leak detection drains in secondary clay liners.
Projecting installations should be used for synthetic
liners. Slopes for bedding should be no steeper than the
angle of repose of the drainage layers and all slope
breaks should be rounded. Collection drains over
synthetic liners should incorporate a 4-inch-minimum
bedding of clean sand (SP) to satisfy requirements for
liner protection. Drain rock used over synthetic liners
should be rounded pea gravel. Geotextile fabrics might
be evaluated to serve as an alternative protective
measure.
f. Leachate collection sump and riser. The
current state-of-the-art in leachate collection system
design uses sumps or basins at low points on the base
of the fill to which the leachate collection network
discharges. A riser pipe extending from the sump to the
ground surface enables leachate removal. The lower
segment of the riser pipe in the drain rock of the sump is
slotted, and can be connected to a slotted header pipe in
the sump to allow a higher rate of flow to, and withdrawal
from, the riser pipe.
(1) The riser must be of a diameter that will
accommodate a pump suction line or submersible pump.
The riser pipe can be installed in a trench excavated in
the wall of the clay liner, or bedded in suitable soil on the
surface of the synthetic liner.
(2) Leachate collection networks for landfills,
which must remain functional during the 30-year
postclosure period, should include pipe cleanouts
extending from major collection drains to the ground
surface, to enable system inspection and/or cleaning.
g. Design considerations. In designing a
leachate collection system, one must consider resistance
to chemical attack, prevention of clogging, and pipe
stability.
(1) All components of leachate collection
systems must be able to withstand the chemical attack
which can result from waste or leachate. Plastic (PVC
and polyethylene) and fiberglass piping are usually
selected for such systems; however, if solvents in the
waste stream contain organics capable of attacking
collection pipes, sumps or risers, an alternative to the
use of plastic or fiberglass piping might be concrete or
cast iron. Any geotextile filter cloth or fabric used in the
leachate collection system shall be evaluated for its
ability to withstand attack from the hazardous waste and
the leachate generated from that waste.
(2) The drainage layer, any geotextile filter cloth
or fabric, drain rock, pipe slotting, and waste fines must
be evaluated to determine the ability of the system to
transmit leachate without clogging. Although
6-14
TM 5-814-7
the EPA guidance document recommends use of a
granular layer above the drainage layer, if clean sand is
used for the drainage layer, it will serve to preclude
plugging and possibly eliminate the need for a filter cloth
or fabric.
(3) The pipe used in leak detection and leachate
collection systems must be of sufficient strength and
thickness to withstand the pressures exerted by the
weight of the overlying waste, the cover materials, and
any equipment to be used on the waste unit. Slotting will
reduce the effective strength of pipe and its ability to
carry loads and resist pipe deflection under loading. The
capacity of buried pipe to support vertical stresses may
be limited by buckling and by the circumferential
compressive strength of the pipe. Information on
deflection, buckling capacity and compressive strength
may be obtained from the pipe manufacturer.
(a) Even when correctly designed to withstand
waste loading, piping can fail from equipment loading
during construction or operation of the waste unit.
Moving loads result in impact loading one and one-half to
two times greater than stationary loading. Therefore,
equipment should, if possible, not cross leachate
collection drains installed in projecting installations or in
trenches with shallow cover. When equipment must be
routed across a drain, impact loading should be
minimized by mounding material over the pipe to an
adequate depth to prevent pipe failures.
(b) Specific design procedures and examples
used to determine loads resulting from the waste fill
and/or construction equipment are provided in appendix
V.2 of SW-870.
6-5. Surface water run-on and run-off control
systems
a. Regulatory requirements. Surface water run-
on and run-off control systems are required for landfills,
waste piles and land treatment units and indirectly for
surface impoundments. Regulatory requirements for
surface water control at land disposal facilities are
summarized in table 6-5. While federal regulations
require control systems for 24-hour, 25-year storms,
state regulations may require sized control for storms
with a return frequency up to 100 years. In such cases,
the more stringent requirement should be considered in
sizing surface water run-on and run-off control facilities.
The designer must also size collection and holding
facilities, and develop specific management procedures
to enable all run off from active disposal areas to be
retained for treatment prior to its evaporation or
discharge to natural drainage courses or back to an
approved hazardous waste facility.
b. Types of control systems. Run-on and run-
off control systems at hazardous waste units utilize a
variety of structures for control of surface water,
including conveyance, barrier and control/retention
systems.
 TM 5-814-7
Table 6-5. Requirements for Surface Water Run-on and Run-off Control Systems

Section of 40 CFR 264 Describing Requirements

K L M N
Design Requirements Surface Impoundments Waste Pile Land Treatment Landfill
Design, construct, operate and maintain a run-on
control system capable of preventing flow onto the
active portion of the treatment zone during peak
discharge from at least a 25-year
storm. NA 264.251(c) a 264.273(c) b 264.301(c) a
Design, construct, operate and maintain a run- off
management system to collect and control (at a
minimum) the water volume resulting from a 24-
hour,
25-year storm NA 264.251(d) C 264.273(d)C 264.301(d)
Design, construct, maintain and operate to prevent
overtopping or overfilling by wind and wave action,
rainfall and
run-on 264.221(c) NA NA NA
Collection and holding facilities for run-off
control systems must be emptied or otherwise
managed after storms to maintain design capacity
of the
system. NA 264.251(e) 264.273(e) 264.301(e)
While in operation, inspect weekly and after storms
to detect evidence of deterioration, malfunctions, or
improper operation of run-on and run-off control
systems 264.226(b)(1)d 264.254(bX1) 264.273(c) 264.303(bX1
After closure, maintain the run-on control system NA, unless NA, unless
and the run-off management
system. closed as a closed as a 264.280(3),(4) 264.310(bX5)d
landfill landfill 264.280(cX3),(4)

a The active portion.

b The treatment zone.
c Does not state that this pertains to the active portion; however, it is assumed to be such.
d This subsection of 40 CFR 264 indirectly applies.
Adapted from 40 CFR 264
(1) Typical examples of conveyance facilities, as
well as erosion control measures, are provided in EPA
600/2-79-165, section 10. Examples of standard surface
water control facilities, along with design procedures for
their selection, design and construction, are provided in
the Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices
published by the US Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). Examples of conveyance
facilities used for run-on and runoff control at hazardous
waste units are shown in figures 6-6 through 6-8 and
described below. These figures show grass areas with
slopes of 2:1; note, however, that any vegetated final
slope areas to be tractor mowed should have slopes no
greater than 3:1.
2) Examples of barrier conveyance
detention/retention systems include:
Barriers: berms, dikes
Conveyance: swales, ditches, channels, pipe
cross drains and over- side drains
with inlet and outlet appurtenances;
pipedrop inlets, hooded inlets, drop
and chute spillway structures
Detention/retention: sedimentation control bas-
ins and run-off
retention basins
c. Run-on control systems. Drainage berms,
ditches and overside drains or spillways can be selected
and designed to prevent flow onto the active portion of
waste units during peak discharges from specified return
storms. Drainage swales and ditches with berms can be
located to intercept and convey water run-on flows
around hazardous waste sites and around waste units
within the site. To reduce the potential for erosion and
minimize maintenance, spillways or overside drain
systems should be considered for steep ditch reaches
and where collected flows must be carried down slopes
for discharge.
(1) If there is any chance that overflows could
damage constructed elements of waste units or enter
and active operation areas, they should be sized for carrying
peak flows from storms with return frequencies upwards
to 100 years. Erosion control measures for the
conveyance system should be evaluated and selected to
minimize maintenance over the anticipated service life.
As described in paragraph 6-5d(2), conveyance systems
developed for the waste unit perimeter to intercept run
on may also be used to intercept run off from closed
areas, if the surface water does not require retention.

6-15
 TM 5-814-7

Figure 6-6. Typical run-on control ditches.

6-16
 TM 5-814-7

Figure 6-7. Typical run-on control ditch for waste units.

6-17
 TM 5-814-7

Figure 6-8. Typical run-off control ditch for final cover areas.
6-18

(2) Sedimentation controls should be established
for onsite borrow areas and construction areas. Where
possible, facilities for control of sediment transport
should be located near the source, so that only
sediment-laden waters need be handled. The near-
source system requires less extensive structures than
the downstream sedimentation control basin alternative
for intercepted run-on flows.
(3) Sediment control facilities for source areas
include:
(a) Temporary Sediment Basins-At construction
areas, where run off is usually confined to ditches or
depressions in the topography, basins can be
constructed by excavating shallow depressions and
placing berms or sandbags to contain water for
sedimentation.
(b) Silt Barriers-Where sheet flow occurs (on
perimeter construction slopes, and in large excavations),
silt fences or hay bales placed in a shallow trench can be
positioned to intercept run off and remove sediment. Silt
fences normally consist of filter cloth fastened to wire
fencing.
(c) Vegetation-Completed borrow areas, inactive
stockpile areas, and final cover areas can be seeded,
fertilized or hydroseeded to establish a vegetative cover
which will provide erosion and sediment control. When
vegetation has become established, downgradient silt
fences or other sedimentation control structures may be
removed.
(4) Sedimentation control basins (figure 6-9),
used for settling out sediment being carried by surface
flows, are often established at discharge locations by
constructing containment dikes and excavating a basin
area. To discharge surface water, emergency overflow
spillways and pipe drains are typically provided.
(5) The principal maintenance requirement for
sedimentation basins is removal of accumulated
sediment by draglines or loaders during dry-weather
periods.
d. Run-off control systems. Run-off control
systems which handle surface water flows from active
portions of hazardous waste units and any site staging
areas that might contain wastes residue must include
collection and holding facilities (figure 6-9). These
facilities retain run off for treatment before its release,
evaporation, or discharge back to an approved
hazardous waste facility.
(1) For large sites located in semi-arid regions, collection
and holding facilities might be developed to receive run
off from the majority of the site, rather than specific
waste units. Such facilities could easily be sized to retain
and effect evaporation of run-off volumes much larger
than those from the required 24hour, 25-year storm,
ensuring full containment while minimizing operational
requirements. For sites located in more humid areas,
the immediate waste handling
6-19
TM 5-814-7
areas and active disposal units should be confined, and
operations effectively controlled, to enable collection and
retention of the minimum volume of run off which may
best be treated for release, or discharged back to an
approved hazardous waste facility.
(2) The conveyance systems developed to carry
run off from active areas of waste units, and the retention
facilities developed to contain run off, must prevent any
release of liquid. Closed pipes or ditches with synthetic
liners should be considered for waste piles and landfills.
(3) Conveyance systems within land treatment
units may include unlined terraces and grass waterways
for both application of liquid waste, and for intercepting
flows and minimizing erosion within the land treatment
area.
(4) Retention facilities designed for all waste
units should meet either storage or surface
impoundment requirements. However, a lower area of
either waste unit might be developed and used for the
retention and treatment of run off from active areas. The
adequacy of the retention basin size should be
demonstrated, based upon a monthly tabulation of run-
off storage requirements, and the methods for emptying
the basins and dispersing of the accumulated waters,
(i.e., treatment and discharge, evaporation, spray
irrigation, solidification, etc.).
(5) Procedures which may be required to
minimize the active area from which run off must be
collected could include internal berms, synthetic cover,
encapsulated wastes, and restrictions during wet-
weather periods.
e. Sizing run-on/run-off control systems.
Methods used to predict run-off volumes and peak flow
rates include the Rational Formula, empirical
expressions and charts of the USDA’s Soil Conservation
Service (SCS), and various hydrographic procedures.
Both the Rational Formula and the SCS charts provide
predictions which can be used in sizing surface water
control systems at disposal facilities.
(eq 6-1)
(1) For the Rational Equation: Q = CiA
where: Q = flow rate (cfs)
C = run-off coefficient (assumed)
i =intensity of rainfall
(inches/hour) for the selected
design duration and frequency
A = tributary area, in acres
(2) The value of C for sizing run-off control
systems should be 0.8 to 1.0 when the active areas are
barren or lined. The same factor should also be used to
determine the volume of run off into holding facilities over
the specified period of time. Run-off coefficients for
other surface conditions applicable to land disposal
facilities are available in TM 5-820-4.
(3) The SCS method provides empirically based
 TM 5-814-7

Figure 6-9. Run-on sedimentation control/run-off retention basins.

6-20

charts for determining the peak rate of discharge from
small watersheds, based on values for surface soil types
and antecedent moisture conditions. Basic information
and values are summarized in EPA 60012-79-165 and
detailed in the US Department of Agriculture’s
engineering field manual.
(4) Sedimentation basins are sized based on
analysis of settlement time for suspended solids, i.e.,
sands, silts and clays. Sizing procedures are provided in
TM 5-820-1 through TM 5-820-4. The trapping efficiency
of a basin is related to its surface area; the basin’s depth
only provides for sediment storage. The latter document
provides an assessment of SCS sizing criteria, and
demonstrates that constructing basins to control clay-
sized particles during peak flows may not be practicable
because the basins would need to be ten times larger
that those used for control of silts.
6-6. Gas control systems
a. Introduction. Gaseous emissions from
hazardous waste land disposal facilities-including
landfills, surface impoundments, and land treatment
sites-generally fall into two categories: (1) methane gas,
produced by the anaerobic decomposition of organic
wastes, and (2) toxic vapors, produced by the
volatilization of chemical wastes. Methane gas,
explosive in concentrations of 5 to 15 percent by volume
in air, is generated mainly in landfills containing organic
wastes; waste volatilization can occur at landfills, surface
impoundments and land treatment sites.
(1) There are no specific regulations for control
of gaseous emissions at hazardous waste facilities. In
landfills containing organic wastes, compliance with the
RCRA solid waste criterion for explosive gases is
recommended (40 CFR section 257.3-8). This criterion
stipulates that methane concentrations at the property
boundary not exceed the lower explosive limit (LEL) of 5
percent; in facility structures the limit is 25 percent of the
LEL, or 1.25 percent methane.
(2) EPA regulations do not specifically address
the effects of hazardous waste land disposal facilities on
air quality, due to the limited information on emissions
from such facilities and the fact that the problem is
waste-specific. However, 40 CFR 241.206-2
recommends that the need for gas control should be
assessed; if the need for control measures is warranted,
the location and design elements for vents, barriers or
related systems should be provided on design plans for
the facility. A collection system is not required at new
facilities if the owner/operator can demonstrate that no
gas will be produced or, if produced, would neither
contribute any air pollutant to the atmosphere nor create
a flammable or explosive environment.
b. Control techniques. Control techniques for volatile
emissions from surface impoundments and land
treatment sites are largely preventive in nature. Emis-
6-21
TM 5-814-7
sions from surface impoundments can be minimized by
increasing impoundment depth and decreasing surface
area, and by constructing wind barriers. Removal of
volatiles from the waste stream by stream stripping,
distillation or incineration can also be used, where
practical. In all cases, codisposal of reactive and/or
incompatible wastes should be avoided. At land
treatment facilities, volatilization can be mitigated by
injecting volatile substances at least 6 inches below the
ground surface into moist but friable soils.
(1) Venting is required at surface impoundments
if gases accumulate beneath a liner and build up
pressure. Sufficient gas pressure can lift the liner,
creating an area where additional gas can accumulate.
The higher the "gas bubble" rises, the more the
membrane stretches and the less the hydrostatic
pressure is able to restrain the membrane. If this
condition is not controlled by venting, the liner could
rupture or float to the surface of the impoundment.
(2) A number of control alternatives are available
at landfills. Choice of the appropriate control system will
depend on control objectives and involve determination
of the type of wastes present, the depth of fill, and the
subsurface characteristics of the sites and adjacent
areas. In addition, field measurements should be used
to determine gas concentrations, positive and negative
pressure, and soil permeability.
(3) Atmospheric pipe vents, either of the "U" or
mushroom configuration, can be used in landfills to
control vertical movement of gases; they are most
effective in areas where gases are collecting and
causing pressure buildup. For example, venting is
effective in preventing uplift of the top liner following
closure of a landfill. Forced ventilation, on the other
hand, provides an effective means of controlling both
lateral and vertical migration of gases. Such systems
usually employ a series of pipe vents or wells installed
within lined landfills and are connected by a manifold to a
motor blower. The effectiveness of vent trenches can be
increased by capping the trench with clay or other
impervious material and employing lateral and riser pipes
connected by a manifold to a motor blower. The gas to
be vented or withdrawn from the landfill may require
collection and treatment to control odors and to prevent
discharge of volatile toxics to the atmosphere.
c. Design considerations and constraints. Pipe
vents are usually constructed of perforated PVC pipe
installed in a gravel pack to prevent clogging and
encourage gas migration to the vent. They should be
sealed to prevent excess air from entering the system
and to prevent methane or volatile toxics from leaking
out. The key design considerations in installation of pipe
vents, as part of either atmosphere or forced ventilation
systems, are proper placement and spacing. An
additional consideration for forced ventilation sys-

tems is the gas flow rate. Flow rates should be at least
equal to the rate of gas production but low enough to
prevent excess oxygen from being drawn into the
system. Details concerning proper design of pipe vent
systems are contained in Methane Generation and
Recovery from Landfills, EMCON Associates (1980).
(1) Vent trenches are constructed by excavating
a deep trench which is backfilled with gravel to provide a
path of least resistance through which gases can migrate
vertically. Design considerations in constructing vent
trenches include ensuring proper ventilation by backfilling
with sufficiently permeable material and avoiding
infiltration of precipitation and clogging by solids. In
passive closed vent trenches, ventilation can be
enhanced by proper design of laterals and risers.
(2) In active vent trenches with forced ventilation,
the equations and design criteria for active control wells
apply, with allowances for the smaller area and greater
permeability of the trench backfill. The key design
consideration for vent trenches is that the depth of the
trench extend to the ground-water table or an
unfractured impervious stratum to prevent gas from
migrating under the trench.
6-7. Final cover
a. Regulatory requirements. Final cover is
required for closure of all hazardous waste landfills,
surface impoundments developed for waste disposal,
and those surface impoundments and waste piles at
which all contaminated subsoils cannot be removed or
decontaminated at closure.
TM 5-814-7
(1) Specific regulations concerning final cover
are summarized in table 6-6. The prime function of
finmal cover is to minimize infiltration of precipitation.
Other functions include preventing contamination of
surface water run off, wind dispersion of hazardous
waste, and direct contact with hazardous waste by
animals or humans. To prevent liquid accumulation
within closed disposal units, the regulations specify final
cover must have a permeability less than or equal to the
permeability of any bottom liner system or natural
subsoils present.
(2) For long-term performance with minimum
maintenance, the final cover must be designed to
promote drainage, minimize erosion, preclude
accumulation of gas pressures, and accommodate
settling and subsidence.
b. Elements of the cover system. Design
features and criteria recommended for final cover in the
EPA guidance documents are shown in figure 6-10. The
recommended three-layered final cover includes:
* A soil layer for vegetation
* A drainage layer
* A low permeability layer
(1) The upper soil layer is to sustain vegetation
and minimize erosion of the cover; the middle drainage
layer is to carry infiltrating water from sustained
precipitation to the sides of the cover for discharge; the
low-permeability layer is to prevent fluid inflow and
ensure that infiltrating water is carried by the drainage
layer.
(2) An overview of procedures for evaluating clo-

Table 6-6. Requirements for Surface Water Run-on and Run-off Control Systems

Section of 40 CFR 264 Describing Requirements

K L M N
Design Requirements Surface Impoundments Waste Pile Land Treatment Landfill
Cover the unit with a final cover designed and
constructed to: ’ 264.2282(iii) May apply NA 264.310(a)
Provide long-term minimization of the
migration of liquids through the closed unit.
Function with minimum maintenance Promote
drainage and minimize erosion or abrasion of
the final cover Accommodate settling and
subsidence so that the cover’s integrity is
maintained; and Have a permeability less than
or equal to the permeability of any bottom liner
system or natural subsoils present.
Maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the final
cover, including making repairs to the cap as
necessary to correct the effects of settling,
subsidence, erosion, or other events. 264.228(bXl) May apply* NA 264.310(bXl)
Prevent run-on and run-off from eroding or
otherwise damaging the final cover. 264.228(bX4) May apply’ NA 264.310(bX5)
*If not all contaminated subsoils can be practicably removed or decontaminated, the unit must be closed in accordance
with requirements that apply to landfills.

Adapted from 40 CFR 264

6-22
 TM 5-814-7

Figure 6-10. Final cover details.

6-23

sure covers is provided in EPA SW-867. More detailed
design criteria and procedures are provided in EPA
600/2-79-165 and EPA SW-873.
(3) The low permeability layer includes a
minimum 2-foot-thick soil liner and a synthetic
membrane at least 20 mil thick. General design,
selection, and construction procedures for both synthetic
and clay liners are provided in paragraph 6-2.
(a) soils suitable for the lower liner are native
clay materials, or soils blended with clay, bentonite, or
other additives, which can exhibit, when placed on a firm
base, a recompacted permeability of 41 x 10-7 cm/sec.
The soil liner should generally fall into the CL/CH Unified
Soil Classification System, with not less than 50 percent
by weight passing a No. 200 sieve (U.S. Standard), a
liquid limit between 35 and 60, and a plasticity index
above the "A" Line in the plasticity chart of the USCS.
Any additive which increases the soil’s vulnerability to
cracking by settlement or excessive shrinkage should be
avoided.
(b) Achievable field densities for cover soil liners
are generally less than for base liners, because waste fill
areas provide a softer, more flexible construction
subgrade. The designer should obtain laboratory tests of
the permeability of representative soil liner samples
remolded to achievable field densities at moisture
contents greater than optimum to establish construction
procedures for low in-place permeability of the soil liner.
(c) The designer should specify moisture
conditioning requirements, the thickness of soil layers for
compaction, the type and weight of equipment, and the
number of equipment passes required to achieve the
required density/permeability and avoid flexural cracking
during placement. The constructed soil liner shall be
protected from drying until placement of the synthetic
membrane. Spraying with water or application of an
emulsion to prevent drying may be necessary.
(d) The EPA guidance documents specify a
synthetic liner at least 20 mil thick; demonstration of the
liner’s compatibility with the waste or leachate is not
required in this case, because the liner is not expected to
be in contact with waste or leachate. Nevertheless, liner
selection should be based upon its resistance to the
waste present and to degradation, as well as its ability to
undergo deflection due to settlement without cracking or
tearing.
(e) The synthetic liner must be protected both
above and below by a layer of material no coarser than
sand. Sands should be classified as either SW or SP by
the USCS, with less than 5 percent passing the No. 100
sieve. In addition, sands which act as filters must meet
filter graduation requirements, such as those shown in
chapter 5 of TM 5-820-2. The synthetic liner can be
placed directly on the soil liner with ade-
6-24
TM 5-814-7
quate protection, provided the upper 6 inches is no
coarser than sand and free of rock, fractured stone,
debris, cobbles, rubbish, and roots. A drainage layer
selected to meet the requirement for bedding material
can be used above the liner.
(f) Where surface slopes are 3:1 or steeper,
geotextile fabrics are recommended for placement over
the synthetic liner. Heavy geotextile fabrics >, 12 oz/yd
are increasingly being used in combination with flexible
membrane liners in hazardous waste units to protect the
membranes from puncture and abrasion. If geotextiles
are used to protect synthetic membranes, it is important
that they, like the synthetic membranes, be tested for
compatibility with hazardous waste. However, many
such fabrics are made of polypropylene or polyester
materials and may have compatibility characteristics
similar to those exhibited by liners of the same materials.
(g) Care must be taken to avoid any penetration
of the liner. Where inlets or outlets are required (e.g., for
an impoundment), inflow/outflow piping should be
designed to go over the top whenever possible. Energy
dissipaters may be needed at the pipe inlet/outlets.
Where penetrations cannot be avoided, precautions
must be taken to ensure an adequate seal between the
liner and any unavoidable penetration. In such cases,
flange-type connections should be considered. EPA
SW-870 outlines procedures for sealing between the
liner and any penetration.
(h) EPA requires that the liner must also be
protected from damage by sudden changes in slope; to
prevent liners from freezing, they must be located
entirely below the frost line. Procedures are provided in
EPA 600/2-79-165.
(4) The drainage layer must be at least 12
inches thick, exhibit a permeability of >1 x 10-3 cm/sec,
and be able to carry infiltrating waters to the sides of the
cover for discharge.
(a) The designer should carefully evaluate the
drainage layer for its ability to carry waters for discharge,
and the need for a synthetic fabric filter or graded
granular layer to prevent plugging due to infiltration of
soils from the vegetated soil cover layer. Measures
should be considered to preclude piping of the drainage
layer at discharge areas.
(b) Selection of a clean sand (SP), which
exhibits the required permeability and is able to carry the
volume of infiltrating water, will not only satisfy the
bedding requirements for the synthetic liner, but may
also eliminate the need for a granular layer to prevent
plugging; nevertheless, a synthetic fabric filter should be
considered to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the
drainage layer.
(c) Although the EPA guidance documents
indicate drainage collection devices are not necessary, a
perforated drainage collection pipe to intercept and

carry water from the drainage layer to surface drainage
facilities may be a better alternative than granular
drainage discharge areas.
(5) The soil layer for vegetation should be a high
quality topsoil at least 2 feet thick, and capable of
sustaining vegetation.
(a) The vegetation must be a persistent but
shallow-rooted species which will minimize erosion, while
not penetrating below the vegetative and drainage layers
(EPA SW-867 and EPA 600/2-79-165). The vegetated
soil layer must also have an erosion rate of < 2.0 tons
per acre per year using the US Department of Agriculture
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). This equation and
data for its use are described in EPA SW-867 and EPA
600/2-79-165.
(b) As noted, steeper perimeter slopes must be
provided with surface drainage systems capable of
conducting run off across the slope without damaging the
vegetated soil cover. Stability against slippage under
saturated or seismic conditions must also be
demonstrated.
c. Design considerations. Because hazardous
waste fills can undergo settlement, and any damaging
effect of settlement on final cover must be repaired
during the post-closure period, the designer should
assess the potential for uniform settlement of the waste
fill, recommend operating practices which minimize
differential settlement, and select construction slopes
which minimize the damaging effect of settlement.
(1) Settlement of waste fills generally occur due to
(a) Mechanical consolidation: a decrease in void
space related to applied load(s) of the fill and soil cover
and their depth.
(b) Biological decomposition: a decrease in
volume by loss of solids.
(c) Displacements: differential settlements
which result from liquefaction of saturated layers, creep
of the waste fill, and/or collapse of drums placed prior to
the ban of such practice.
(2) In new facilities, where design procedures
minimize foundation settlement, and placement
procedures minimize differential settlement of the fill,
consolidation of the waste fill will be the primary source
of settlement. The potential for settlement should be
analyzed for the following conditions: compression of the
foundation and compression of the waste due to
dewatering, liquefaction, primary and secondary
consolidation, biological oxidation of organics, * and
chemical conversion of solids to liquids. EPA SW-873
provides current state-of the-art design information to
determine settlement, and additional studies are being
performed for EPA.
(3) The following provisions should be
considered to minimize damage by anticipated
settlement:
* Calculate assuming one pound of organic matter will be
destroyed for each two pounds of oxygen consumed
in a BOD5 test.
6-25
TM 5-814-7
(a) Selecting design slopes which will minimize
the damaging effect of settlement, i.e., use 4 percent
construction slopes for upper surfaces over fill areas
where settlements can be expected to be uniform, due to
placement procedures and a uniform depth of fill, and
use 10 to 33.3 percent slopes (10:1 to 3:1 horizontal to
vertical slopes) over perimeter and interim fill areas,
where the depth of fill increases significantly due to the
perimeter excavation, and can result in settlements
which decrease the construction slope by 10 percent or
more (see figure 6-10).
(b) Using uniform fill placement and solidification
procedures which minimize differential settlement and
enable prediction measurements for the order of
settlement that can be expected after closure.
(c) Staging final closure to delay placement of
final cover where substantial settlement is expected
(may require an extension in the 180-day limit for
closure, and placement of an expendable interim cover).
(4) Design slopes should be selected to allow for
any settlement. Final slopes should be at least 3 percent
to prevent ponding due to irregular surface areas, but
less than 5 percent to prevent excessive erosion.
Perimeter slopes may be steeper, but must be provided
with surface drainage systems capable of conducting run
off across the slope without forming erosion rills and
gullies. Steeper slopes must be evaluated for stability
against slippage under saturated or seismic conditions,
and for acceptable resistance to erosion.
6-8. Special design elements
a. Regulatory requirements. Regulations within
sections of 40 CFR 264 establish design, construction
and maintenance requirements for structural integrity of
impoundment dikes, overtopping controls, and wind
dispersal controls. Requirements related to air
emissions have not been established, but are expected
to be developed in the future by EPA. The specific
regulations are summarized in table 6-7.
b. Design considerations for dikes. Since dikes
are the principal containment components of surface
impoundments and are partially or completely above
ground, it is essential that they be designed, constructed
and maintained with sufficient structural integrity to
prevent failure. Dike slopes must be stable at all times,
especially during rapid drawdown of waste liquids; they
must also be protected against erosion due to wave
action, wind, rain or animal intrusion. Dikes must be
designed so that excessive stresses are not put on the
foundation.
(1) To accomplish these goals, the designers
must evaluate the materials of construction, liner type(s),
weather factors, loads imposed by wastes, drainage
systems, and the hydrologic and geotechnical
characteristics of the site. Analyzing the stability of the
pro-
 TM 5-814-7
Table 6- 7. Requirements for Special Design Elements
Section of 40 CFR 264 Describing Requirements

K L M N
Design Requirements Surface Impoundments Waste Pile Land Treatment Landfill
Dikes
Dikes are designed, constructed, and maintained
with sufficient structural integrity to prevent
massive failure of the dikes. In ensuring structural
integrity, it must not be presumed that the liner
system will function without leakage during the
active life of the
unit. 264.221(d) NA NA NA
Weekly inspection for severe erosion or other signs
of deterioration in
dikes. 264.226(bX4) NA NA NA*
Overtopping
The unit must be designed, constructed,
maintained, and operated to prevent overtopping
resulting from normal or abnormal operations
overfilling; wind and wave action; rainfall; run- on;
malfunctions of level controllers, alarms
and other equipment; and human error. 264.221(c) NA NA NA
Weekly inspections to detect evidence of
deterioration, malfunctions, or improper operation
of overtopping control
systems. 264.226(bXl) NA NA NA
Wind Dispersal
If the unit contains any particulate matter
which may be subject to wind dispersal, the owner
or operator must cover or otherwise manage the
unit to control
wind dispersal. NA 264.250(cX3) 264.233(f) 264.301(f)
Inspected weekly and after storms for proper
functioning of wind dispersal l
control systems,) NA 264.254(bX3 264.273(gX2)) 264.303(X)(3
where present. 264.280(aX5)
* No standards or requirements established.
Adapted from 40 CPFR 264
posed or existing dike system is of primary importance; *For flow-through units: adequately sized
slope failure due to saturation, earthquake or poor spillway or weir-type discharge
construction could result in extensive environmental, structures which can maintain a constant
property and human damage. liquid level and freeboard.
(2) Stability assessments should utilize in situ -pipes with valved intakes and outlets for
properties of the dikes and foundations and pertinent regulating flows.
geologic information. Assessment methods and -pumping systems for control of inflows
evaluative criteria are presented in NAVFAC DM 7.1 and and outflows.
EPA SW-873. Evaluations and monitoring must be · For units without outlets: provisions to
repetitive to ensure structural integrity and containment assess the freeboard level and regulate
of liquids. inflow to prevent overtopping.
c. Prevention of overtopping. Surface (2) A 2-foot freeboard is documented as
impoundments must be designed, constructed, providing sufficient protection against overtopping due to
maintained and operated to prevent overtopping. inflow fluctuations or wave action; however, when
Designing impoundments with significant freeboard, manual operation is involved, greater freeboards may be
establishing operating practices to monitor and regulate necessary to ensure protection.
liquid levels, using automatic liquid level controllers, (3) Water balance studies must be performed for
and/or using alarms can prevent overtopping. evaporation surface impoundments. The summation of
(1) Specific guidance requirements to preventing liquid wastes volume and precipitation inflows, minus the
overtopping include: evaporation losses, determines the anticipated liquid
* For stormwater: design and operating levels. The EPA believes stormwater should be diverted
provisions which can withstand, at a from surface impoundments. The guidelines to
minimum, the flow generated by a 24-hour, accomplish this are that structures be designed to di-
100-year storm.
6-26

vert the maximum flow from a 100-year storm, unless the
volume of the contributing flow will not cause appreciable
loss of freeboard.
(4) If overtopping is imminent or a failure occurs,
provisions must be available to divert flow to another unit
or stop the inflow.
d. Control of wind dispersal. Wind dispersal
control measures are required for waste piles, land
treatment areas, and landfills. The generation and
dispersion of dust from a hazardous waste unit can pose
potential health hazards as well as affect visibility. Dust
emissions can occur by wind erosion of exposed soil or
waste areas, vehicle traffic on unpaved haul roads, and
soil handling activities.
(1) Although watering for immediate control can
be an effective short-term wind dispersal method,
additional control methods should be implemented to
minimize long-term wind erosion of open soil or waste
areas. Control methods include physical, chemical or
vegetative stabilization of exposed surfaces.
(2) Physical stabilization involves covering exposed
surfaces with a material that prevents wind from
disturbing the surface particles; materials used for this
purpose include rock, soil (including daily and
intermediate cover), crushed or granulated clay, bark or
wood chips. Chemical stabilizers, often used in
conjunction with water, can provide dust suppression for
several months. Since many of these chemical
compounds are proprietary, their characteristics are
difficult to evaluate without site-specific field testing.
Information concerning these chemical stabilizers, in-
6-27
TM 5-814-7
cluding a discussion of their characteristics, is presented
in EPA 600/2-79-165.
(3) A more permanent solution .to controlling
wind dispersal of dust is vegetating exposed inactive soil
borrow areas, land application areas, and soil stockpile
areas. Vegetative cover not only serves as a permanent
method of suppressing dust, it also serves to enhance
the aesthetics of the site. The particular vegetative
species selected should be compatible with soil type,
growing conditions, climate, and site end use. Additional
information concerning selection of vegetative species
and planting techniques is presented in EPA 600/2-79-
128.
(4) Control provisions to reduce or eliminate the
generation of fugitive dust from unpaved haul roads
include (1) physical stabilization (placing a gravel layer
on the road), or (2) chemical stabilization (application of
binding materials).
(5) Imposing speed reductions on unpaved
roads during dry weather can also help to reduce dust
generation.
(6) For land treatment facilities, wind dispersal
control measures include (1) surface wetting (irrigation)
with water or chemical agents, (2) development of a
vegetative cover, (3) windbreaks, and (4) waste
application timing. The specific control measure(s)
selected will depend on site-specific conditions.
Additional information concerning wind dispersal control
for land treatment units is available in EPA SW-874 and
the EPA Office of Solid Waste Draft RCRA Guidance
Document for Land Treatment.

CHAPTER 7
OPERATIONS AND CONTINGENCY PLANS/TRAINING
7-1. Operations
a. Purpose. The designer of hazardous waste
land disposal/land treatment facilities must have an
understanding of their basic operations. Such an
understanding is fundamental to the development of
design plans that take into account day-to-day
operations, required equipment, health and safety
provisions, and operator needs. A summary of general
operations for landfills, surface impoundments and land
treatment facilities is presented below. For a brief
discussion of procedures for injection wells and waste
piles, see paragraph 5-5 and 5-6, respectively.
b. Landfill operations. Typical operations at a
hazardous waste landfill include the following activities:
• Unloading wastes onto the active lift by forklift
or front-end loader.
• Segregating wastes in cells or subcells to
prevent mixing of incompatible wastes.
• Covering wastes with soil to prevent wind
dispersal.
• Grading cover soil to facilitate collecting any
direct precipitation in a sump.
• Placing cover soil on areas of the landfill that
have been brought to final grade.
(1) To minimize infiltration of rainfall during very
wet conditions, tarps may be used to cover the active
area of the landfill. In areas of very high rainfall, wastes
are often containerized or stored until the rainfall season
is over.
(2) Equipment for landfill operations is used for
handling wastes and cover material, spill and fire control,
and decontamination. Typical equipment includes:
• Forklift and front-end loader to unload and
place solid waste and containers.
• Dozens and self-loading scrapers to spread
and compact cover material.
• Road graders and water pickup and vacuum
trucks to provide support functions such as
maintenance of site roads.
• Fire control, spill control and decontamination
equipment.
c. Surface impoundment operations. During
the time that liquid wastes are impounded, the following
inspection activities are required:
• Monitoring to ensure that liquids do not rise into
the freeboard (prevention of overtopping).
• Monitoring leak detection system.
• Inspecting containment berms for signs of
leakage or erosion.
• Periodic sampling of the impounded wastes for
selected chemical parameters.
7-1
TM 5-814-7
• Inspecting periodically for floral and faunal activities
(such as animal burrows) that could cause leaks through
earthen dikes, levees or embankments.
(1) Liquid wastes may be removed from an
impoundment by a variety of methods, including (but not
limited to) decanting, pumping and settling, solar drying,
and chemical neutralization. Details concerning removal
methods are presented in SW-873.
(2) Typical equipment used for closing an
impoundment includes:
• Centrifugal pump or hydraulic pipeline dredge
to remove impounded liquids.
• Vacuum truck to pump slurried sediment from
the impoundment.
• Rotary cutter to extract hardened sediments.
• Dragline or front-end loader to excavate
solidified sediments.
d. Land treatment operations. Typical land
treatment operations include:
• Applying liquid wastes (less than 8 percent
solids) by either spraying the waste on the land
with sprinklers or by using flood or furrow
irrigation techniques.
• Spreading semiliquid sludges (8 to 15 percent
solids) on the land or injecting them 4 to 8 inches
below the soil surface.
• Applying low-moisture solids (> 15 percent
solids) to the surface and later incorporating into
the soil.
(1) Regardless of which waste application
method is used, the most important objectives are
uniform application of wastes, and use of application
rates that are tailored to the assimilative capacity of the
soil.
(2) Equipment used for land treatment varies,
depending on application technique selected. Typically,
this includes:
• Piping and a pump to transport wastes to the
point of discharge (for surface irrigation by
furrow or flooding).
• Truck or trailer-mounted tank if wastes are to
be applied by gravity flow or through a sprayer or
manifold.
• Vacuum truck with flotation tires and rear
sprayer or manifold for surface spreading of
sludge.
• Moldboard plow, disk or rotary tiller for
incorporating waste into the soil.
• Truck or tractor with two or more chisels if
wastes are to be injected into the subsurface.

7-2. Permit application assistance
a. The design engineer should develop a
detailed operations plan for the facility that will include
preclosure, closure and post-closure operations. These
plans are usually required as part of the state permit
application process. Generally such plans describe the
characteristics of the wastes handled at the facility,
equipment and operating procedures, site personnel,
and provisions for emergencies and other contingencies.
b. Typical components of operations plans
include:
• Access Procedures
• Waste Identification
• Entry Procedures
• Waste Handling and Control
• Management and Personnel
• Operations and Safety Training
• Safety
• Facility Equipment
• Security
• Monitoring
7-3. Contingency plans
a. Section 3004(s) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) stipulates that
regulatory standards for hazardous waste facilities shall
include "contingency plans for effective action to
minimize unanticipated damage from any treatment,
storage or disposal of any such hazardous waste."
b. Subpart D (Contingency Plan and
Emergency Procedures) of 40 CFR 264.50-56 outlines
the required contents of the plan, personnel
responsibilities and emergency procedures. Specifically,
the plan must be designed to minimize hazards to
human health or the environment from fires, explosions,
or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of
hazardous waste constituents to air, soil or surface
water. Section 264.52(b) of subpart D states that if the
owner/operator has a SPCC plan, "he need only amend
that plan to comply with the requirements of this part."
c. From a facility design perspective, the
contingency plan must include the facility provisions
which will aid in quick and effective emergency response
procedures as well as those features that will help to
avoid emergency situations. These might include the
following:
(1) Primary and secondary spill containment
structures and methods.
(2) Structures and equipment used for the
containment and suppression of fires (e.g., installed
sprinkler or foam systems, fire breaks).
(3) Location of facility:
• away from active faults
• away from sources of ignition
• away from flood zones or low-lying coastal
areas
7-2
TM 5-814-7
(4) Adequate ground-water monitoring program.
(5) Communication and alarm systems.
d. Specific design features are not required by
the contingency plan, however, an acceptable
contingency plan is based on the intrinsic safety features
of the individual facilities. Surface impoundments require
additional contingency planning, as well as development
of emergency repair procedures; similar regulations are
proposed for waste piles.
7-4. Personnel requirements, training, and safety
a. Regulations promulgated under RCRA on
May 19, 1980, require owners or operators of hazardous
waste management facilities to train their personnel.
Specifically, 40 CFR 264.16 states: "Facility personnel
must successfully complete a program of classroom
instruction or on-the-job training that teaches them to
perform their duties in a way that ensures the facility's
compliance with the requirements of this Part ..."
b. This program must be directed by a person
trained in hazardous waste management procedures and
must include instruction which teaches facility personnel
hazardous waste management procedures (including
contingency plan implementation) relevant to the
positions in which they are employed. At a minimum, the
training program must be designed to ensure that facility
personnel are able to respond effectively to emergencies
by familiarizing them with emergency procedures,
emergency equipment, and emergency systems,
including where applicable:
(1) Procedures for using, inspecting, repairing, and
replacing facility emergency and monitoring
equipment;
(2) Key parameters for automatic waste feed cutoff
systems;
(3) Communications or alarm systems;
(4) Response to fires or explosions;
(5) Response to ground-water contamination
incidents; and
(6) Shutdown of operations.
c. This training must be completed within six
months from the date of employment or assignment to a
facility or to a new position at a facility, whichever is later.
d. The regulations state explicitly that facility
personnel must be trained and that the training must be
correlated to job classification. The regulations do not
provide criteria for acceptable training programs.
e. For some types of activities existent at
hazardous waste management facilities, personnel
training is required under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act (29 CFR 1910 et seq.). However, personnel
training which is required under RCRA has been
interpreted as going beyond that designed to protect
workers and ex-
 TM 5-814-7

tending into the area of community protection as well. requirements more restrictive than the RCRA
f. States requiring training as part of their requirements. As a minimum, however, all states must
hazardous waste regulatory program may impose comply with the federal training requirements.
training

7-3

CHAPTER 8
GROUND-WATER MONITORING
8-1. Introduction
a. Subpart F of 40 CFR 264 establishes
standards for groundwater protection and monitoring that
apply to owners or operators who treat, store or dispose
of hazardous waste in surface impoundments, waste
piles, land treatment units, or landfills.
b. Under Interim Status regulations in 40 CFR
265:F, existing surface impoundments, landfills or land
treatment facilities are also required to implement
ground-water monitoring programs to determine the
facilities’ impact on ground water.
c. If an existing facility is upgraded, the facility
owner or operator must continue to comply with the
interim status regulations specified in 40 CFR 265:F until
final administrative action on the facility’s permit
application. Initial background water quality data
collected during this period is used for the detection
and/or compliance monitoring programs regulated by 40
CFR 264:F once a permit is granted to the facility. The
designer should be aware, however, that the monitoring
system installed at existing facilities in compliance with
the interim status regulations may not meet the more
stringent standards for permitted facilities and may
require modifications or additions.
d. Many variables exist within a given
hydrogeologic environment that affect ground-water
occurrence. To yield usable information, as well as to
ensure their effectiveness, monitoring programs must
therefore be designed based on a thorough knowledge
of site hydrogeology (EPA SW-963, SW-611).
8-2. Monitoring requirements
a. Background ground-water quality.
Section 264.97 requires that ground-water quality data
be collected at all hazardous waste units to establish a
background value for any hazardous constituents or
monitoring parameters specified in the facility permit.
Sampling frequency and techniques are detailed in the
regulations.
b. Detection monitoring. A detection
monitoring program (section 264.98) is required at all
hazardous waste units to provide an early indication of
leakage into the uppermost aquifer.
(1) Detection monitoring, conducted at
least semiannually, determines ground-water quality at
the point of compliance. The parameters or constituents
requiring monitoring are specified in the facility permit.
(2) The information collected is
analyzed to determine whether there has been a
statistically significant increase over background values
for any parameter or
8-1
TM 5-814-7
constituent specified in the permit. If so, the EPA
Regional Administrator (RA) establishes a ground-water
protection standard for the facility.
c. Ground-water protection standard. The
groundwater protection standard indicates when
corrective action is necessary to control contamination
from a regulated hazardous waste unit. The standard
has four main parts: (1) the hazardous constituents to be
monitored (section 264.93), (2) the concentration limits
for each hazardous constituent that trigger corrective
action (section 264.94), (3) the point of compliance
(section 264.95), and (4) the compliance period (section
264.96).
d. Compliance monitoring. Compliance
monitoring (section 264.99) is implemented when
detection monitoring reveals a confirmed, statistically
significant increase in any parameter or constituent
specified.
(1) Compliance monitoring requires
quarterly sampling at the compliance point for
hazardous constituents specified in the ground-water
protection standard. Analysis for all appendix VIm of 40
CFR 261 hazardous constituents must also be done
annually.
(2) Data collected from these tests are
analyzed to determine if a statistically significant increase
in hazardous constituent concentration has occurred. If
so, a corrective action program is implemented at the
RA’s direction.
e. Corrective action program. A corrective
action program (section 264.100) is undertaken to
ensure that hazardous waste units are brought into
compliance with the ground-water protection standard.
This goal must be achieved by either removing the
hazardous constituents or treating them in place.
Corrective action may be terminated only after ground-
water monitoring data demonstrate that the standard has
not been exceeded for three consecutive years.
8-3. Monitoring program
a. Determining the hydrogeologic environment
of a waste disposal unit is an essential first step in
designing and planning a monitoring program. The
hydrogeologic investigation should include identification
of the uppermost aquifer, determination of the hydraulic
conductivity of underlying formations, and determination
of seasonal and other fluctuations in ground-water
surface elevation, which will yield information on
hydraulic gradients and flow direction. Subsurface
cross-sections, prepared from boring logs, geophysical
surveys and existing site information, may be used in
conjunction with a base map to characterize the
hydrogeologic environment of the site. Methods of
determin-

ing hydrogeologic conditions are detailed in chapter 3 of
this manual.
b. A minimum of four ground-water monitoring
wells will be installed, one hydraulically upgradient of the
waste disposal unit, to provide background groundwater
quality data, and three downgradient of the facility to
detect contaminant discharge. Small indoor waste piles
are the only waste facilities at which fewer wells will be
considered.
c. Upgradient wells should be installed in the
uppermost aquifer at a location not likely to be affected
by the waste facility. Downgradient wells should also be
installed in the uppermost aquifer, but along pathways
likely to transport contaminants, should any be released
from the facility. Care must be taken in locating and
constructing monitoring wells to ensure that they not
serve as conduits for contaminants to enter the ground
water, or allow contaminated ground water to migrate to
an uncontaminated aquifer.
d. Well depth should be determined on a
sitespecific basis. Factors which influence well depth, as
well as the depth of the sampling (or intake) interval of
the well casing, include ground-water levels and the
behavior of specific contaminants in the aquifer. These
determinations are dependent on a detailed log of
borings and on the subsurface geologic conditions. e.
The principal components of the monitoring well are the
well casing and the perforated or screened sampling
interval. A typical ground-water monitoring well is shown
on figure 8-1. Details on well design and sampling
methods appear in SW-611 and in the RCRA guidance
manual on ground-water monitoring. It must be stressed
that well design must always be based on a clear and
detailed understanding of site hydrogeologic conditions.
(1) One of the considerations in design of
the well is selection of the proper well diameter, which
depends on a number of factors, including state and
federal requirements, drilling method and subsurface
conditions, as well as the diameter of the sampler.
Monitoring wells generally have casing diameters of
either 2 or 4 inches. The larger casing size permits
greater flexibility in sampling methods, since an inner
diameter of 4 inches is generally required to
accommodate submersible pumps and other equipment
used for evacuation and sampling. Two-inch casings
may be necessary or favorable in some instances,
however, since they can be installed by the dry hollow-
stem continuous flight auger drilling method. Some drill
rigs can install 4-inch casings but such rigs are not
always readily available.
(2) Proper location of the intake, or
sampling, interval of the monitoring well is extremely
important to ensure that it is in the path of likely
contaminants and therefore likely to yield representative
samples. Where aquifer zones are relatively thin (i.e., no
more
8-2
TM 5-814-7
than 20 feet thick), the well should be perforated
throughout the zone. In thicker aquifers, multiple wells
(see figure 8-2) should be used to define water quality
stratification within the aquifer. Care should be taken to
ensure that the perforated interval does not provide
hydraulic connection between isolated aquifers.
(3) Also important is the sizing of the
perforations or screen. A properly sized screen,
generally one designed to exclude up to 60 percent of
formation materials, will prevent passage of fines from
the formation, while allowing passage of sufficient water
for sampling. In most cases a commercially fabricated
screen is recommended, although a factory-slotted
casing may be adequate for some applications. Field
perforation of well casings is not recommended.
(4) Materials selected for the well casing
should be compatible with the expected contaminants to
minimize the potential for interaction between the casing
material and the sample. Steel casings may contribute
iron and other ions to the sample. Furthermore, the
metallic oxides which form on a steel casing influence
concentrations of cautions and some organic molecules.
PVC pipe, unlike steel well casing, is resistant to most
chemicals, nonconductive, and chemically inert;
however, PVC is not recommended for sampling certain
reactive organic constituents such as ketones or
aromatic compounds, which can better be accomplished
using stainless steel or teflon. However, the final
selection of well materials should be determined by a
person knowledgeable about the probable chemical
reactions (e.g., a chemist or chemical engineer).
Needed joints in PVC casings should be fashioned using
threaded couplings instead of glue to avoid
contamination.
(5) Locking caps and concrete pads
should be installed on all monitoring wells. Pads should
be designed to divert drainage from the casing, thereby
preventing precipitation or extraneous substances from
entering the well.
f. Well drilling methods, filter packing, sealing
and development are the components of concern in well
construction, both to maintain the integrity of the
borehole and to prevent contamination of samples.
(1) The drilling method selected should
avoid spreading any ground-water contamination and/or
interfering with the sample to be collected. Both dry and
wet drilling methods are commonly used to construct
monitoring wells. Conventional auger drilling is
advantageous, since the potential for introducing
extraneous fluids is less than with rotary drilling methods.
Auger drilling is best suited to fine-grained,
nonconsolidated materials; rotary (air or water) drilling is
required for wells in cemented or consolidated materials
such as bedrock. The maximum casing diameter in
wells drilled by the standard continuous flight auger

Figure 8-1. Monitoring well details.
method is 4 inches (2 inches if inserted into hollowstem
augers). However, larger non-continuous auger drilling
equipment can be used in primarily finegrained deposits
to install shallow wells with casing diameters up to 12
inches.
(2) If well drilling methods are employed,
drilling fluids should be chosen to minimize
contamination, and care should be taken to prevent entry
of drilling fluids into aquifer flow zones. Generally, all
additives or drilling fluids are disallowed at DA facilities
except clean water and/or bentonite clay. When
subsurface or contaminant conditions warrant, a
variance should be requested and justification submitted
to the Major Command for consideration.
(3) Filter packing is used to develop a
zone of in-
8-3
TM 5-814-7
creased hydraulic conductivity around the sampling
interval and to prevent clogging. The filter pack consists
of gravel or sand placed in the borehole around the
sampling interval of the well (see figure 8-2).
Selection of the grain-size of a filter pack requires
sampling and sieve analysis of the aquifer materials.
Proper installation of the filter pack is necessary to
prevent separation of the fine and coarse particles and
consequent bridging of the material, which could result in
formation of void spaces. Use of a tremie pipe is
recommended for installation of the filter pack; however
in shallow wells, slow pouring or shovelling may be
acceptable. For wells drilled in soil, the minimum boring
diameter in the filter pack portion of the well should be at
least 4 inches larger than the inner diame
 TM 5-814-7

Figure 8-2. Monitoring well installations.

8-4

ter of the screened interval; in wells drilled in rock, well
diameters may be as little as 2 inches larger than the
screened interval.
(4) Regulations in 40 CFR 264:F require
that the annular space between the well casing and the
borehole be sealed to prevent contamination of the
ground water and/or sample. Both cement grout and
bentonite are effective agents that are commonly used
for sealing monitoring wells. If portland cement is used,
special care should be taken to minimize shrinkage, as
well as to prevent migration of the grout into adjacent
formations. Alternatively, a grout mixture of portland
cement, sand, bentonite and water can be used. If
bentonite is used, a 3to 5-foot seal of bentonite pellets
must be placed between the well casing and the
borehole. A base of sand may also be necessary around
and above the screen. Installation of sealing agents is
best accomplished with a tremie pipe; pouring and
tamping may, however, be adequate for shallow wells of
small diameter.
(5) Well development is necessary to
ensure the free flow of water into the sampling interval,
to purge drilling fluids and other contaminants, and to
eliminate clay, silt and other fines which could contribute
to water turbidity and interfere with chemical analysis. In
developing the well, ground water within the casing is
repeatedly forced in and out of the sampling interval by
flow reversal or surge. The well is then pumped or
bailed until a volume of clear water equal to that required
for operation of the sampling program is obtained. If the
well cannot be adequately developed, it should be
replaced with a new well.
g. Federal regulations for both existing
facilities and new facilities require that a ground-water
sampling and analysis plan be prepared which details
procedures and techniques to be followed in collecting,
preserving, shipping and analyzing samples.
(1) Water level measurements are
required each time a sample is collected. Such
measurements are nec-
8-5
TM 5-814-7
essary to detect seasonal changes or other fluctuations
in the water table which could affect flow direction and
the well’s ability to yield a representative sample.
(2) Before a sample is withdrawn,
standing water should be purged from the well. This is
an important procedure, since such water can have
substantially different chemical characteristics from the
ground water to be sampled, due to dissolution of gases;
leaching or adsorption of casing, screen or grout
materials; and/or biological activity within the well. It is
generally recommended that wells be completely
evacuated before sampling. High-yield wells should, if
possible, be pumped dry twice and allowed to recover
before sampling; one complete evacuation is sufficient
for lowyield wells. If complete evacuation is not possible,
a volume of water equal to 4 to 10 times the amount of
standing water should be withdrawn. The exact volume
to be withdrawn will depend on site-specific conditions.
(3) A variety of sampling devices are
available, including bailers, portable pumps, air-lift
sampler and suction pumps. Care should be taken to
choose equipment that will not contaminate the sample,
particularly when trace elements are to be analyzed. All
equipment should be thoroughly cleaned before
introduction into a monitoring well. Once a sampling
device has been chosen, the same equipment and
sampling procedure should be used in subsequent
sampling, if values are to be compared.
(4) Accepted procedures for preserving
and protecting ground-water samples during shipping
and while awaiting laboratory analysis should be
followed. All samples should be firmly sealed, clearly
labelled and packed in compatible containers that will
prevent breakage, spills and contamination. The
sampling schedule and methods of analysis should be
according to the regulations in 40 CFR 264:F and the
guidelines presented in the RCRA ground-water
monitoring guidance manual.

CHAPTER 9
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PLANS
9-1. Introduction
a. Subpart G of 40 CFR 264 establishes
performance standards that must be met by individual
hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities
to extend protection of human health and the
environment beyond the active life of the facility. These
closure and post-closure standards are the basis for
written plans that the facility owner or operator must
prepare, amend as necessary, and submit with the
permit application. Approval of the designated closure
procedures and, where applicable, post-closure plans is
a condition of facility operation.
b. The plan must identify the steps necessary
to close or partially close the facility at any point during the unsaturated zone should be monitored as part of the
its intended operating life, and to completely close it at
the end of its intended life. Copies of the closure and
post-closure plans must be kept at the facility and
revised whenever changes in the operating plans or
facility design affect the closure or post-closure
procedures, or whenever the anticipated year of closure
changes.
9-2. Closure Procedures
a. Each hazardous waste management unit
must be closed in a manner that minimizes the need for
further maintenance, particularly with respect to escape
of hazardous waste, leachate, contaminated rainfall or
waste constituents to ground water, surface water, soil or
the atmosphere. The owner or operator and a certified
engineer should certify that the land disposal/land
treatment facility has been closed in accordance with the
approved closure plan. Closure procedures for each
disposal mode are summarized below.
b. Landfill closure is achieved by installing a
final cover which has a permeability less than or equal to
that of the bottom liner. The cover should be capable of
(1) minimizing infiltration of liquids, (2) functioning with
minimum maintenance, (3) promoting drainage and
minimizing erosion of cover, and (4) accommodating
settling and subsidence.
c. Surface impoundments can be closed in
one of two ways:
(1) Removing or decontaminating all
wastes, waste residues, system components (such as
liners), subsoils and structures or equipment. No post-
closure care is required as long as removal or
decontamination is complete.
(2) Removing liquid waste or solidifying the
remaining waste. A final cover must be placed over the
impoundments closed by solidification. Post-closure
care of such impoundments will consist of monitoring
ground water and conducting corrective action if it is
9-1
TM 5-814-7
warranted (see para 8-5), and maintaining the
effectiveness of the final cover. For double-lined
disposal units, the leak detection system must be
monitored as part of post-closure care.
d. Closure of a land treatment unit may be
accomplished by either (1) establishing a permanent
vegetative cover capable of maintaining growth without
extensive maintenance, (2) removing and landfilling the
zone of incorporation, or (3) capping the land treatment
area to control wind and water erosion. General closure
practices called for include minimizing run off from the
treatment zone, continuing ground-water monitoring, and
continuing restrictions on food-chain crops. In addition,
closure procedures; however, soil-pore liquid monitoring
may be suspended 90 days after the last application of
waste at the unit. Each of these practices is described in
chapter 12 of EPA SW-874.
e. Closure requirements for waste piles are
less stringent than those for facilities such as landfills
since waste piles cannot be used for permanent
disposal. The principal closure requirement for a waste
pile that has achieved adequate waste containment
during its active life is removal or decontamination of all
waste and waste residue, and all system components
(e.g., liners), subsoils, structures and equipment which
have been contaminated by contact with the waste.
However, if contamination of the subsoils is so extensive
as to preclude complete removal or decontamination, the
closure and post-closure requirements applying to
landfills must be observed. Ensuring adequate
containment of waste should therefore be an important
consideration in initial design of a waste pile.
9-3. Components of closure plan
a. The components of the closure plan
summarized below apply to all hazardous waste disposal
facilities, as well as to storage facilities, i.e., those from
which the wastes will be removed at closure. In addition
to the general requirements, there are special provisions
for the different types of hazardous waste land treatment
and disposal facilities. Specific procedures to be
followed in closure of hazardous waste landfills, waste
piles, surface impoundments and land treatment units
are contained in chapter 5.
b. At a minimum, the closure plan for all
facilities must include the following elements:
(1) Procedures for partial and final
closure: partial closure may involve closing part of a unit,
such as a landfill cell, while other parts of the same
facility continue to operate.

(2) Estimated date(s) of partial closure.
(3) The maximum extent of the operation
that will remain open during the life of the facility.
(4) Estimates of the maximum waste
inventory in storage and in treatment at any time during
the life of the facility.
(5) Procedures to decontaminate
equipment during closure.
(6) Estimated year of final closure.
(7) Schedule to close facility allowing 90
days after final volume of wastes is received for
treatment, removal or onsite disposal. Closure must be
completed within 180 days of receipt of last volume of
wastes.
(8) Procedure for updating the closure
plan.
9-4. Post-closure plans
a. Post-closure plans must be prepared for all
disposal facilities that will contain hazardous wastes after
closure. Surface impoundments permitted for storage,
i.e., those from which all wastes are to be removed at
closure, must have not only a closure plan for waste
removal, but also contingency closure and post-closure
plans to close the unit as a landfill, should complete
waste removal not be possible. Likewise, if
decontamination of a waste pile cannot be completed at
closure by removing the waste, waste residues,
contaminated subsoils, structures and equipment, landfill
closure and post-closure requirements will apply.
b. The post-closure plan for a hazardous
waste disposal unit or facility describes the owner or
operator’s responsibilities for maintaining the
environmental protection and physical security of the site
for 30 years after closure. The deed of the property, or
other document that would be examined during a title
search, must alert any potential purchaser that the land
has been used to manage hazardous wastes. The deed
must notify the purchaser that post-closure use must not
disturb the protective features of the site such as the
liner, cap, or monitoring systems. Any variation from this
standard requires approval of the
9-2
TM 5-814-7
EPA administrator or authorized state department.
c. The 30-year post-closure period may be
reduced if the owner or operator demonstrates that a
shorter I time period will be sufficient to protect human
health and the environment. Conversely, the period may
be extended if, for example, groundwater monitoring
data indicate a potential for harmful migration of wastes.
d. The actual contents of the post-closure plan
will vary with each site to reflect the degree and type of
maintenance dictated by the facility life, the closure
procedures, and the site’s design. For most units, the
post-closure plan will include activities in two principal
categories: (1) ground-water monitoring, and (2)
maintenance activities. Components of these plans are
summarized below.
• Ground-Water Monitoring
— Include a copy of ground-water monitoring and
analysis plan
— Indicate: (a) number, location and depth of wells
to be monitored during post closure, (b)
frequency of monitoring, and (c) monitoring
procedures and analyses
• Maintenance Activities
— Facility inspection schedule
— Care of cover and/or vegetation
— Erosion control activities
— Maintenance of ground-water monitoring
— Collection and disposal of leachate
— Maintenance of gas control system
— Care of security systems
— Response to unplanned events such as severe
storm erosion, drainage failure, drought or other
occurrence that could threaten facility integrity
Within 90 days after closure is completed, a survey plat
indicating the location and dimension of landfill cells or
other disposal areas, must be submitted to the EPA
administrator and the local zoning authority or the
authority with jurisdiction over local land use.

CHAPTER 10
COST ANALYSIS
10-1. Cost Elements
a. Cost elements for hazardous waste facilities
are based on a number of variables, including:
• Regional hydrogeologic setting
• Condition of the existing facility
• Local construction costs
• Available water quality data
Because of the number and complexity of the variables
governing costs, the analysis is limited to typical
hazardous waste land disposal/land treatment facilities,
namely lined units.
b. Cost elements for lined hazardous waste
units include materials costs for liners, underdrain
systems, and ground-water monitoring wells; and
installation costs, including the costs of necessary
equipment and labor. Since there will be considerable
variation between projects, however, a number of factors
must be considered in estimating the capital cost of a
lined hazardous waste unit.
(1) Type of liner material. Liner material
costs can vary significantly, depending on the type of
liner installed, the required thickness of the liner and, in
the case of synthetic liners, whether they are reinforced
or not. Liner type will also influence installation costs.
For example, seaming methods for synthetic liners
(solvent, heat or contact adhesive) may differ depending
on the liner material selected; preparation of the liner
base is also different for soil liners than for synthetic
membranes.
(2) Location of the facility. The location of
the hazardous waste unit can affect both the cost of
labor and the delivery cost for materials. Materials costs
can also be affected by the facility location, depending on
the availability of needed soils and aggregates.
(3) Facility size. The size of the waste unit
to be
Table 10-1.
SUMMARY OF UNIT COSTS FOR LINED FACILITY
Element
Excavation
(including clearing and grubbing)
Earthfill
berms and levees
soil liners
Soil Import
sand (gradation for drainage)
drainage rock (rounded)
(cost delivered)
Soil Placement
sand
Vegetation
mulch and hydroseed
Filter Cloth
10-1
TM 5-814-7
lined can have a significant effect on unit costs.
Polymeric membranes and natural soil materials are
usually sold at a discount when purchased in large
quantities.
(4) Site conditions. The soil types,
topography and configuration of a site can influence liner
installation costs. Preparation of the liner base is
essential to liner effectiveness and integrity; the ease
with which the base can be prepared will depend on site
conditions. Whether soils for liners and earthwork must
be imported (at higher cost) will also depend on site
conditions.
(5) Economic factors. The cost of
synthetic liners depends, to a large extent, on the cost of
the petroleum used in their manufacture. Market supply
and demand will also influence the cost of liner materials.
10-2. Unit Costs
a. Unit costs for various elements of a
hazardous waste facility are presented in table 10-1.
b. The costs presented in table 10-1 are
based upon standard building cost references, bid prices
and telephone inquiries to material suppliers. Unit costs
have, in general, been expressed in ranges to account
for the variation likely to occur from site to site. In
estimating the cost of a specific hazardous waste unit,
the designer should consider the preliminary design
criteria as well as any site-specific factors which would
influence the cost of materials or installation.
Contingency and wastage factors should be added to the
cost of installation, to account for adverse weather, seam
overlap requirements, and other such considerations;
soil shrinkage and compaction should also be factored
into the cost analysis.
1983 Costs
3
$1.50/yd
3
$2.00/yd
3
$3.00/yd
3
$10.00/yd
3
$10.Oyd
3
$1.00/yd
$1,000/acre
2
$0.75-1.50/yd
 TM 5-814-7
Table 10-1-Continued
SUMMAR Y OF UNIT COSTS FOR LNED FACILITY

Element 1983 Costs

2
Geotextile Fabrics $1.00-3.00/yd
Membrane Liners’
Non-reinforced Materials
2
30 mil PVC 0.25-0.301ft
2
30 mil CPE 0.35-0.40mft
2
30 mil Butyl/EPDM 0.45-0.50/ft
2
30 mil Neoprene 0.70-0.75/ft
2
100 mil HDPE 1.00-1.50/ft
Reinforced Materials
2
36 mil Hypalon (CSPER) 0.50-0.55/ft
2
60 mil Hypalon (CSPER) 0.80-O.90ft
2
36 mil CPER 0.50-0.55/ft
2
Installation, excluding earthwork 0.06-0.121ft
2”Slotted plastic drain pipe $3.00/ft
Monitoring Wells $50.00/ft
(drilling, casing and gravel pack
up to 50 feet deep)
*Prices from Watersaver, Inc., based upon 400,000 ft 2 installations

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

10-2
 TM 5-814-7
APPENDIX A

REFERENCES
Government Publications
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Office of Solid Waste, 1983. RCRA Guidance Document
(SCS). for Land Treatment (Draft).
National Technical Information Service, U.S. Depart- 625/1-81-013, 1981. Process Design Manual-Land
ment of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161 Treatment of Municipal Wastewater.
Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices General Services Administration.
Department of the Army. Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing
AR 200-1 Environmental Protection and Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Enhancement Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 146
AR 200-2 Environmental Effects of Army Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 260
Actions Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 261
TM 5-809-10 Seismic Design Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 262
TM 5-818-1 Foundation Design of Buildings Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 264
TM 5-820-1 Surface Drainage Facilities for Air Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 265
Fields and Heliports Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 270
TM 5-820-2 Subsurface Drainage Facilities for Air Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NA VFAC).
Fields Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing
TM 5-820-3 Drainage and Erosion Control for Air Office, Washington D.C. 20402
Fields and Heliports DM 7.1 Soil Mechanics
TM 5-820-4 Drainage for Areas Other Than Air U.S. Congress.
Fields Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Office, Washington D.C. 20402
Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Clean Air Act, PL 95-396, 42 USC 7401 et seq.
Office, Washington D.C. 20402 Clean Water Act, PL 95-217, 33 USC 1251 et seq.
Design of Small Dams, 1973. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, PL
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 94-140, 7 USC 136 et seq.
National Technical Information Service, U.S. Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of
Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 1972, PL 92-532, 33 USC 1401 et seq.
22161. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), PL 91-190,
600/2-79-128, August 1979. Adapting Woody Species 42 USC 4321 et seq.
and Planting Techniques for Landfill Conditions. Occupational Safety and Health Act, PL 91-596, 29 CFR
600/2-79-165, August 1979. Design and Construction of 1910 et seq.
Covers for Solid Waste Landfills. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), PL
SW-611, 1980. Procedures Manual for Ground-Water 94-580, 42 USC 6901 et seq.
Monitoring of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. Safe Drinking Water Act, PL 93-523, 42 USC 300f et
SW-846, 1982. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid seq.
Waste. Toxic Substances Control Act, PL 94-469, 15 USC 2601,
SW-867, Lutton, R. J., 1982. Evaluating Cover Systems et seq.
for Solid and Hazardous Waste. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
SW-870, Matrecon, Inc., 1983. Lining of Waste March 1983. Technologies and Management
Impoundment and Disposal Facilities. Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control.
SW-873, Acurex Corporation and Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Nongovernment Publications
1982. Closure of Hazardous Waste Surface American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race
Impoundments. Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
SW-874, K. W. Brown & Associates, 1983. Hazardous ASTM Method Test for Moisture-Density Rela
Waste Land Treatment. D1557-78 tions of Soils and Soil-Aggregate
SW-963, 1980. Ground-Water Monitoring Guidance for Mixtures Using 10-lb (4.54-kg) Rammer
Owners and Operators of Interim Status Facilities. and 18-in (457-mm) Drop

A-1
 TM 5-814-7
APPENDIX B
B-I. Purpose and scope B-2. Tables
The tables presented in this appendix are intended to Table B-1 Summary of RCRA Hazardous Waste
illustrate the regulatory requirements applicable to the Regulations Applicable to TM 5-814-7.
design of land disposal/land treatment facilities Table B-2. Review of State Hazardous Waste
Management Programs.
Table B-I. Summary of RCRA Hazardous Waste
Regulations Applicable to TM 5-814- 7’
Regulation Title Applicable Elements of the Regulation
40 CFR 260 Hazardous Waste Management • Definitions
System: General • Petitions for equivalent testing
• Petitions to exclude a waste generated at a particular facility
40 CFR 261 Identification and Listing • Defines hazardous waste and those wastes which are excluded under the broad
of Hazardous Waste definition
• Recycled or recovered waste exclusion
• General hazardous waste characteristics
• Lists of hazardous waste
40 CFR 262 Standards Applicable to • Hazardous waste determination
Generators of Hazardous Waste • Recordkeeping and reporting requirements
• Procedures for notification of hazardous waste activity
40 CFR 264
Subpart A Standards for Owners/Opera- • Scope and applicability of the standards
tors of Hazardous Waste • Enforcement in cases of 'mminent Hazard"
Treatment, Storage and • Relationship of these standards to the permitting process
Disposal Units
Subpart B General Facility Standards • Waste analysis requirements
• Security
• Inspections
• Personnel training
• Requirements for ignitible, reactive or incompatible waste
Subpart C Preparedness and Prevention • General design and operation criteria to prevent unplanned sudden or non-
sudden releases of hazardous wastes
Subpart D Contingency Plan and • Contents of the contingency plan
Emergency Procedures • Emergency procedures for responding to fires, explosions or material release
• Definition of personnel responsibilities
Subpart E Manifest System, Record- • Use of manifest system
keeping and Reporting • Reporting requirements
Subpart F Ground-Water Protection • Procedures to identify escape of contaminants from facilities
• General ground-water monitoring requirements
• Protection standards and allowable concentration limits for permit obtainment
• Detection monitoring program
• Compliance monitoring program
• Corrective action program
Subpart G Closure and Post Closure • Establishes closure performance standards
• Post-closure care and property use
Subpart K Surface Impoundments • Prevention of overtopping
• Liner design and materials (DA impoundments are required to have double liners
and leak detection or secondary leachate collection systems for non-inspectable
installations)
• Ground-water monitoring requirements
• Run-on/run-off controls
• Cap requirements
• Closure requirements
Subpart L Waste Piles • Liner design and materials (DA waste piles are required to have double liners and
leak detection or secondary leachate collection systems for non-inspectable
installations)
• Leachate collection and removal systems
• Ground-water monitoring requirements
• Monitoring exemptions
* The regulations summarized in this table represent technical and performance standards for hazardous waste units; omitted
from the table is 40 CFR 270, which presents the procedural requirements and criteria for the part B permit process.
B-1
 TM 5-814-7
Table B-I. Summary of RCRA Hazardous Waste
Regulations Applicable to TM5-814- 7 (Continued)
Regulation Title Applicable Elements of the Regulation
• Run-on/run-off controls
• Special waste controls
• Closure/post-closure care
Subpart M Land Treatment • Treatment program performance standards based on treatment zone and waste
constituents
• Site selection criteria
• Soil preparation and care
• Run-on/run-off controls and treatment
• Wind dispersal controls
• Vegetation
• Unsaturated zone monitoring requirements
-soil-pore liquid tests
-chemical make up of soil
• Closure/postclosure care
Subpart N Landfills • Design and operating requirements: liners, leachate collection systems,
exemption demonstration, run-on or run-off control systems, wind dispersal
control
• DA landfills are required to have double liners and leak detection or secondary
leachate collection systems
• Exemption from Subpart F for double-lined units
• Monitoring program
-detection
-compliance
-correction
• Inspections
• Special requirements for liquid wastes
• Special requirements for containerized waste
• Closure/post-closure requirements
US Army Corps of Engineers.
Table B-2. Review of State Hazardous Waste Management Programs
Specific Siting Burial Policies Discourage
1 2
State Universe of Waste Procedures Restriction Landfilling
Alabama RCRA X
Alaska RCRA
Arizona Equivalent + expanded criteria X X
Arkansas RCRA + PCB's
California RCRA + expanded criteria X X
Colorado Equivalent X
Connecticut RCRA by statute X X
Delaware RCRA
Florida RCRA by reference X X
Georgia RCRA by reference X X
Hawaii RCRA
Idaho RCRA
Illinois RCRA + special wastes X X X
Indiana RCRA X X
Iowa RCRA by reference X X
Kansas RCRA X X
Kentucky RCRA by reference X X
Louisiana RCRA + expanded waste list
Maine RCRA X X
Maryland RCRA + PCB's X X X
Massachusetts RCRA + PCB's, oil, radioactive wastes X X
Michigan RCRA + oil, other toxic wastes X X
Minnesota RCRA + oil X X
Mississippi Equivalent X
Missouri RCRA X X
Montana RCRA
Nebraska RCRA by reference X
B-2
 TM 5-814-7
Table B-2. Review of State Hazardous Waste Management Programs (Continued)

Specific Siting Burial Policies Discourage

1 2
State Universe of Waste Procedures Restriction Landfriling
Nevada RCRA
New Hampshire RCRA X X
New Jersey RCRA + PCB’s, oil X X
New Mexico RCRA
New York RCRA by statute X X
North Carolina RCRA X X
North Dakota RCRA X
Ohio RCRA X X
Oklahoma RCRA: no recycling exemption X
Oregon Equivalent: no waste listing X X
Pennsylvania Equivalent X
Rhode Island Equivalent: limited listing X X
South Carolina RCRA: no recycling exemption X
South Dakota RCRA
Tennessee Equivalent X X
Texas RCRA + halogenated hydrocarbons
Utah RCRA X
Vermont Equivalent
Virginia RCRA
Washington RCRA + expanded waste list X
West Virginia RCRA X
Wisconsin RCRA X
Wyoming RCRA

NOTES:
1. Universe of Waste: refers to the list of regulated wastes in that state.
RCRA-State program is nearly identical to Federal regulations.
Equivalent-State program is equivalent, but not identical to Federal regulations.
RCRA by reference-State program adopted Federal regulations by reference.
2. Specific Siting Procedures: refers to measure taken by the individual states to ensure new facilities are sited in a
manner and location that is acceptable (or tolerable) to local citizenry.
Adapted from Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control, Office of Technology
Assessment, Congress of the US, 1983.

B-3

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE DESIGN PROBLEM
C-1. Purpose and Scope
The design example in this appendix illustrates
predesign considerations and design principles that
relate to the development of plans for a hazardous waste
landfill and surface impoundment. Both facilities are
assumed to be developed for an existing government
owned, contractor-operated, industrial installation that
manufactures small arms, ammunition and chemical
materials. Where appropriate, the design engineer is
directed to primary references for additional details, as
well as to several figures in this TM for typical layouts
and design details. As needed, assumptions underlying
the selection of design elements will be noted.
C-2. Design Example
a. Site Scenario. The general location, size,
hydrogeologic conditions, climate, and anticipated
wastes for this hypothetical installation are summarized
below:
• A 2,000-acre installation in the Midwest char-
acterized by rolling hills above an adjacent val-
ley region.
• Located within Seismic Zone 2, as defined by
paragraph 3-4 of TM 5-809-10.
• Annual precipitation of 39 inches and mean to-
tall snowfall of 17 inches.
• Average daily maximum temperature of 80°F
for May through October and average daily
minimum of less than 32°F for December, Jan-
uary and February.
• Annual pan evaporation is 45 inches, with 76
percent of the evaporation occurring from May
through October.
• 100-year, 24-hour design storm of 5.8 inches.
• Design freezing index of 500 for the region.
• Silty clay topsoil 1 to 3 feet in thickness.
• Glacial till clayey soils interspersed with dis-
continuous sand stringers to a depth of 200 feet
over a shale bedrock.
• Ground water (which occurs within on-site
swales) found at depths ranging from 90 to 120
feet below the surface; flow direction is toward
the adjacent valley.
• Ground water of drinking water quality exists
in only limited amounts; it is not a measurable
source of recharge to the valley aquifer.
• Liquid wastes (designated for the surface im-
poundment) consist of acidic wastewater; maxi-
mum volume of liquid waste storage is
2,000,000 gallons.
C-1
TM 5-814-7
• Solid hazardous wastes (for landfilling) consist
of (1) incinerator ash containing lead (10 cubic
yards (cy) per day), and (2) sludges produced by
an acid neutralization process (20 cy per day).
b. Pre-design evaluation. Given the scenario
described above, the design engineer will initially review
available documents and evaluate site conditions and
waste types and quantities. In addition, the engineer will
perform additional hydrogeologic services identified in
paragraph 3-3 of this TM including geologic mapping of
the proposed site locations, drilling borings and
excavating test pits, and testing soils for geotechnical
properties. Based on the available information, logs of
borings, and additional test results, engineering
properties of soils and related pre-design calculations
and evaluations will be made; these are summarized
below:
(1) Available data verify that both the
surface impoundment and the landfill can be developed
with adequate' vertical separation, and hydraulic
separation from ground water. Construction areas are
well above the 100-year flood plain. Both units allow
excavations which can provide needed topsoils, clayey
soils for soil berms and secondary liners, and soil cover
needs for the operation and closure of the landfill.
(2) Tests of clayey soils determine that
they exhibit a Liquid Limit of 40 and a PI of 18, a dry
density of 105 pcf, an optimum moisture content of 19
percent, and a permeability of 3 x 10-8 cm/sec at
optimum plus 4 percent. When they were subjected to
the hazardous wastes to be contained, the clayey soils
exhibited a permeability of 5 x 10-8 cm/sec.
(3) Based on stability analysis, earthfill
berms or dikes constructed with on-site clayey soils will
have an adequate factor of safety for stability under static
and seismic loadings, provided they are constructed with
a 12-foot-minimum crest width, a maximum height of 25
feet, and side slopes of 3:1 or less (see para 3-3).
(4) Based on current publications on
compatibility testing (EPA SW-870), supportive
information from several lining manufacturers, and
accelerated testing (using the waste to be contained), the
following liners were determined to be suitable for the
project: chlorinated polyethylene (CPE), chlorosulfonated
polyethylene (CSPE), and high density polyethylene
(HDPE) (see para 6-3).
(5) In accordance with the Universal Soil
Loss Equation, (EPA SW-867, page 37) A = RKLSCP,
where
(eq C-1)
R, the rainfall erosion index for the location, is
175

K, the erodibility factor for the above topsoil, is 0.21
C, the cover factor for well established grass-like
plants is, 0.01
P, the erosion control practice for normal
conditions, is 1.0
A, the soil loss in tonslacre/year, limited to < 2 per
RCRA guidance documents
(a) The LS landslope factor must be < 5.4;
therefore the following design slopes could be used:
Slope Slope Length Vertical Height
3:1 34 11
4:1 85 21
5:1 180 35
(b) Based upon a design freezing index of
500 for the region, the silty clay topsoil when barren can
freeze to a depth of about 2 feet (EPA SW-867, page
29).
(6) The sludges produced by the acid
neutralization process can be solidified by adding
nonbiodegradable absorbents or by solar drying; when
absorbents are used, the resultant waste volume is
doubled. The net May through October evaporation rate
of 24 inches allows solar drying (the net annual
evaporation of 5 inches precludes use of solar
evaporation ponds).
c. Required design elements and procedures.
(1) Design elements for the surface impoundment
include:
• a dike along two perimeters of the impoundment
• run-on control ditches
• a double liner system with leak detection which
includes a protective cover, a primary synthetic
liner, a leak detection system, and a secondary
soil liner.
• inlet and outlet pipes (12-inch-diameter pipes to
be provided; these will be equipped with
automatic flow controls to prevent overtop ping).
• ground-water monitoring wells
(2) Design elements for the landfill include:
• an earthfill berm along the end of the landfill
• run-on/run-off control facilities
• a double liner system with leak detection, which
includes a leachate collection system, a primary
synthetic liner, a leak detection system and a
secondary soil liner
• final cover (for closure)
• ground-water monitoring wells
(3) Figure 5-1 illustrates layouts for typical surface
impoundments and a landfill, and figures 5-2, 6-1, 6-2, 6-
5, 6-6, 6-7 and 6-10 show design details.
(4) Proposed dimensions for the 2, 000, 000 gallon
capacity surface impoundment are a 10-foot liquid depth
with a 2-foot freeboard, 3:1 construction slopes, base
dimensions 100 feet wide by 180 feet long (in-
C-2
TM 5-814-7
board crest-to-crest dimensions are 172 feet by 252
feet).
(5) Proposed dimensions of the 200, 000 cy landfill'
are approximately 20 feet deep, with inboard crest-to-
crest dimensions 400 feet wide by about 800 feet long.
The size of the landfill is based upon the following
disposal volumes:
Containerized ash 10 cy/day
Sludges (20 cy/day, with 1/2 dried 30 cy/day
without volume change, and 112
solidified by absorbents, with a
doubled volume)
Operational soil cover needs (2:1 20 cy/day
waste:soil ratios for 40 cy of
waste)
TOTAL 60 cy/day
1,200 cy/mo
2
14,400 cy/yr
(6) When 100-year flood levels are determined to be
above the project area, earthfill levees of compacted
impervious soil can be constructed to prevent flooding
(see figure 6-1).
(7) Liner systems details for this hypothetical facility
(including leak detection and leachate collection
systems) are illustrated in figures 6-2 and 6-5. The
proposed incorporation of a secondary soil liner for the
two waste units in this example problem (and for any
waste unit) should be based upon the premise that there
is little or no potential for ground-water flow into the
detection system. The construction of project earthfills
and proposed clay liners (in accordance with placement
requirements described in paragraph 6-3 and in EPA
SW-870) will provide an adequate secondary liner and
soil subbase for other liner elements at this facility.
(a) Given a DA requirement to limit the number
of field seams and locate such seams to minimize the
potential for leakage, field panel widths of approximately
100 feet for the primary synthetic liner are proposed.
The liner material for the two waste units will be
restricted to CPE and CSPE, based upon compatibility
testing and panel size needs. The actual panel sizes
and layouts are contingent upon required spacing for the
leak detection and leachate collection systems and will
be developed after selecting these design dimensions.
(b) Calculations for the leak detection and
leachate collection systems, and material selections,
are:
• Infiltration rates for system design:
—Assuming seepage through the secondary
1
A desired service life of 15 years requires
about 200,000 cubic yards of capacity.
2
Based upon 5 days/week, 20 days/month, 240
days/year.
 TM 5-814-7

C-3
 TM 5-814-7

C-4

(c) Based upon these calculations, the
design engineer will develop liner panel installation plans
with leak detection and leachate collection networks for
the surface impoundment. Design elements will include:
• A base grade configuration which slopes at
0.5 percent across the 100-foot width of the
pond, with a crest-to-trough distance of 50
feet along the pond's 180-foot length to
accommodate the leak detection pipe
network.
• Two-inch slotted detection pipes in trenches
over the troughs, with risers up the side
slopes within the drainage layer.
• A 36-mil reinforced primary synthetic liner.
• A 1-foot sand/riprap protective cover.
(d) Based upon the calculations outlined
above, liner, leak detection and leachate collection
design elements for the landfill include:
• A base grade configuration which slopes at
0.5 percent across the 400-foot width of
landfill, with crest-to-trough distances of 50
feet along the landfill's length to
accommodate the leak detection pipe
network.
• A trough along the lower side of the landfill
to accommodate a collection drainpipe to
connect leachate laterals to a sump area.
• Two-inch slotted detection pipe, as
described above for the surface
impoundment.
• A 36-mil reinforced primary synthetic liner.
• Four-inch slotted leachate collection pipes
surrounded with rounded drain rock, within
the 1-foot thick drainage layer.
(8) Gas control measures for the facility will be
limited to a few pipe vents for the surface impoundment.
The absence of organic materials below or within the
landfill and surface impoundments minimizes the
likelihood of air pressure developing below proposed
liners. Nevertheless, since even a small amount of gas
pressure can lift synthetic liners in impoundments,
atmospheric pipe vents should be considered at selected
perimeter locations of the surface impoundment.
(9) Surface water control features for the
proposed surface impoundment and landfill will be
similar to those illustrated in figure 5-1. They will include
ditches and drainage pipes normally used to prevent flow
into active portions of waste units. Upon closure, the
run-on control ditches of the landfill carry run off from
closed final cover areas as well.
(a) Run-on control ditches, V ditches and
the typical trapezoidal ditch shown in figure 6-7, can be
constructed with adequate slopes to carry run-off
volumes. For example, with contributory areas of less
than 5 acres, a peak discharge of less than 20 cfs results
from the 100-year design storm. (SCS run-off method,
with a type C soil classification, a CN value of
C-5
TM 5-814-7
70 for grasslands and a steep slope, S > 8 percent.)
(b) A sedimentation basin will be
established for the landfill construction area; in addition,
sediment control facilities will be utilized at all temporary
construction sites.
(c) For the active waste area of the
landfill, temporary containment berms can be used to
retain run off for treatment when limited run off volumes
are involved. By limiting the active waste lift and
containment area for the proposed landfill to an area
about 200 feet long and 100 feet wide, the run off from
the 100-year storm is 72, 000 gallons. This is based on
100 percent run off from a 5.8-inch intensity rainstorm
over the active area.
(d) Due to limited evaporation, the run off
from active areas should be discharged to the surface
impoundment for subsequent treatment. If no additional
rainfall run-off control measures are selected (i.e., tarps,
restricted operations during rainfall periods), the annual
rainfall of 39 inches would produce about 500,000
gallons of liquid.
(10) Ground-water monitoring wells will be
installed in accordance with federal regulations, one
hydraulically upgradient of the facility (to provide
background water quality data) and three downgradient
to detect contaminant discharge. Well design and
sampling procedures will reflect details presented in
paragraph 8-3.
(11) Special design elements needed for this
facility are impoundment dikes and overtopping controls
(part of the plant equipment), with a 2-foot freeboard.
Addressed under liner details are requirements for
developing adequate anchor pads for the "over-the-line"
inlet/outlet pipes and appurtenant structures for flow
control. The only penetrations allowed will be liner
"boots" clamped to penetrations for the leak detection
and leachate collection pipe risers, and gas vents within
the berm crest of the levee of the surface impoundment
(see EPA SW-870, figure IV-22, page 371). No wind
dispersal provisions will be needed since the ash is
containerized.
(12) As segments of the fill are brought to final
grade, final cover for the proposed landfill will be placed
to minimize infiltration of precipitation. As stated in EPA
SW-870, table V-5, page 267, water balance calculations
result in a 2.6-inch maximum monthly infiltration for a 2-
foot clay cover. Final cover slopes (selected based on
LS factors) will be a minimum 3 percent and 5:1 or less;
assuming proper placement procedures, settlement is
not expected to pose a design constraint. The final
cover system will consist of a 20-mil PVC liner placed
over a 2-foot soil liner (permeability of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec),
a drainage layer of sand, and topsoil to facilitate
vegetative growth. General details for the final cover are
illustrated in figures 6-7 and 6-10.
 TM 5-814-7
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Braunstein, J., 1973. Underground Waste Management 6800 Jericho Turnpike, Syosset, New York 11791.
and Artificial Recharge, Vol. 2, American Geraghty and Miller, Inc. and Booz, Allen and Hamilton,
Association of Petroleum Geologists. Inc., 1982. Injection Well Construction Practices and
Brown, K. W., June 1983. Landfills in the Future. Public Technology. Geraghty and Miller, Inc., North Shore
Works, 200 South Boward Street, Ridgewood, New Atrium, 6800 Jericho Turnpike, Syosset, New York
Jersey 07451. 11791.
Cedergren, Harry R., 1977. Seepage, Drainage and Kays, W. B., 1977. Construction of Linings for
Flow Nets, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., One Wiley Reservoirs, Tanks, and Pollution Control Facilities.
Drive, Somerset, New Jersey 08873. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., One Wiley Drive,
Cheremisinoff, N. P., P. N. Cheremisinoff, F. Somerset, New Jersey 08873.
Ellerbusch, A. J. Perna, 1979. Industrial and National Water Well Association, 1982. Aquifer
Hazardous Wastes Impoundment. Ann Arbor Restoration and Ground-Water Rehabilitation,
Science. Proceedings of the Second National Symposium on
Collins, T. G. and Newkirk, D. D., 1982. The Use of Aquifer Restoration and Ground-Water Monitoring.
Geotextile Fabrics in Pond Construction Beneath an National Water Well Association, 500 W. Wilson
Impermeable Membrane. Crown Zellerbach Bridge Road, Worthington, Ohio 43085.
Corporation, Northeast 4th and Adams Street, Overcash, M. R. and D. Pal, 1981. Design of Land
Camas, Washington 98607. Treatment Systems for Industrial Wastes-Theory and
Cook, T. D., ed., 1972. Underground Waste Practice. Ann Arbor Science, 230 Collingwood, P.O.
Management and Environment Implications. Box 1425, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Parr, J. F., Marsh, P. B., and J. M. Kla, 1983. Land
EMCON Associates, 1980. Methane Generation and Treatment of Hazardous Wastes. Noyes Data
Recovery from Landfills. Ann Arbor Science, 10 Corporation, Mill Road at Grand Avenue, Park
Tower Office Park, Woburn, Massachusetts 01801. Ridge, New Jersey 07656.
Engineering Science, May 1982. Comparative Rankilor, P. R., 1981. Membranes in Ground
Evaluation of Incinerators and Landfills. Engineering Engineering. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., One Wiley
Science, Inc., 150 N. Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia, Drive, Somerset, New Jersey 08873.
California 91006. Sittig, M., 1979. Landfill Disposal of Hazardous Wastes
Freeze, R. A. and J. A. Cherry, 1979. Groundwater. and Sludges. Noyes Data Corporation.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey Yrjanainen, G., July 1975. "Sediment Basin Design,"
07632. Water and Sewage Works, University Micro Films
Geraghty and Miller, Inc., 1982. Guidance Document on International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Department PR,
Mechanical Integrity Testing of Injection Wells. Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106.
Geraghty and Miller, Inc., North Shore Atrium,

Bibliography -1
 TM 5-814-7

The proponent agency of this publication is the Office of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army.
Users are invited to send comments and suggested improvements on DA Form 2028 (Recommended
Changes to Publications and Blank Forms) direct to HQDA DAEN-ECE-G), WASH DC 20314.

By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

E. C. MEYER
General, United States Army
Official: Chief of Staff
ROBERT M. JOYCE
Major General, United States Army
The Adjutant General

Distribution:
To be distributed in accordance with DA Form 12-34B, TM 5-800 Series: Requirements, for ENGINEERING AND
DESIGN FOR REAL PROPERTY FACILITIES.

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984-461-028:10038

PIN: 057162